Oral
Answers to
Questions

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

The Secretary of State was asked—

Racing Industry: Gambling

Andrew Bridgen: What discussions she has had with representatives of the racing industry on (a) developing a single customer view and (b) the forthcoming gambling White Paper.

Chris Philp: I have had extensive conversations with the horse-racing industry and with hon. Members who represent constituencies with racing interests on the Gambling Act 2005 review in general and on the plans that the industry are voluntarily developing to share information on customers who are at severe risk of addictive gambling disorders.

Andrew Bridgen: Can the Minister confirm that when the draft proposals of the review are announced, there will be an impact assessment on the horse-racing industry? Will he meet me to discuss my alternative to the proposed single customer view, the single customer wallet, which would not only be cheaper and more efficient for the industry to bring in, but offer consumers better protections?

Chris Philp: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ideas. I assure him that proper impact assessments will be done. We know that horse-racing is a vital sport for the people who work in the industry. It supports many jobs, it provides leisure activities for many people, and it is a significant source of national pride and prestige. Nothing in the Gambling Act review, I hope, will do anything to undermine the financial condition of that great sport or its place at the heart of our national life.

John Spellar: I refer to my entry in the register. I caution the Minister that the civil service always underestimates the extent of potential for fraud and the black market. Whether with tobacco smuggling, excise fraud, VAT fraud, self-employment scams or covid scams, it is continually surprised by what happens. Before he brings out the gambling White Paper, will he talk to the racing and gaming industry to ensure that his proposals do not fuel the black market and organised crime?

Chris Philp: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for attending the recent meeting that we had on the topic. We are, of course, concerned about the possibility of black market gambling. I hope there will be proposals in our review to give the Gambling Commission additional powers to tackle and combat black market betting. We will be mindful of the risks that he has highlighted; I have discussed them already with the Betting and Gaming Council and the industry. We need to balance protecting people who are at severe risk of gambling addiction and serious harm—some people even commit suicide—with ensuring that there is not a flourishing black market, which I am sure all hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to prevent.

Laurence Robertson: I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). I welcome the fact that the Minister will carry out an impact assessment on the possible effect on horse-racing of any changes that he proposes. He will be aware that racing depends heavily on bookmakers for about 45% of its income. I congratulate him on that policy and thank him for the way in which he is carrying out the review.

Chris Philp: I thank my hon. Friend for the meeting that we recently attended. As I said, we will consider the impact of the whole set of proposals covered in the gambling White Paper, which will obviously have a number of effects on different bits of the economy. As I said at the meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on betting and gaming a few days ago, we want to ensure that nothing in the review undermines the status of horse-racing.

Alex Davies-Jones: Delays to gambling reform cost about £647 million each year and the Government have failed to act. It is not good enough. Up to 1.4 million people are considered to be problem gamblers, so I am struggling to see why the Government continue to drag their feet when the need for reform is crystal clear. What is the Minister doing in advance of the long-awaited White Paper, because we need to address the issue now?

Chris Philp: All kinds of measures have been taken to address some of those very serious problems, which I completely recognise and accept. For example, a year or two ago, the use of credit cards to gamble online was banned. As we speak, the industry is in the process of developing a voluntary single customer view. A number of things have been done.
We are working, and have been working, on the Gambling Act review at pace and it will be published in the very near future. It is important to get it right, however, which is why we have taken the time to consult extensively and listen to stakeholders. I have met many hon. Members on both sides of the House to listen to their views too. It is very imminent because, as the hon. Lady says, large numbers of people are suffering serious harm, up to and including committing suicide. That is why it is important for the House to act on, I hope, a cross-party basis, broadly speaking, to sort it out.

Tourism Industry

Huw Merriman: What steps her Department is taking to support the UK tourism industry as covid-19 restrictions are lifted.

Nigel Huddleston: The tourism industry has been severely affected by covid-19, which is why we have provided more than £37 billion in financial support to the tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors over the pandemic. The Government’s tourism recovery plan sets out our ambition to get visitor numbers back to pre-pandemic levels a year faster than independent forecasts predict. To help us to achieve that ambition, VisitBritain’s international marketing campaign launches this month to target pent-up demand in key markets.

Huw Merriman: Last weekend I visited the beautiful Rathfinny vineyard, and last summer I met the Minister in the De La Warr pavilion. These two gems are part of the Sussex Modern trail, which links our vineyards with our cultural and artistic icons. Would the Minister meet me to discuss why Southern rail is not promoting tourism offers such as those, which would not only provide a great boost to its own passenger numbers—needed after covid-19—but boost tourism in Sussex and elsewhere in the country?

Nigel Huddleston: Indeed, I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency last year. He has many gems—cultural, historic, heritage—as well as tourist attractions, so I can see why so many people would want to visit his part of the world. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss his proposals, some of which would involve engagement across Departments, and I would be happy to facilitate those conversations as well.

Chris Matheson: One of the biggest drivers of tourism in my area is the city walls—the only complete set of city walls in the UK—but the local authority has to spend money from the highways budget on their upkeep. Does the Minister agree with me that such major heritage and tourism assets should be funded centrally, because they are national and, indeed, international treasures?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We do invest quite heavily in heritage, particularly with the culture recovery programme, and of course there is ongoing investment in heritage through the national lottery heritage schemes and others. Again, this is an area that sometimes involves cross-Government work, so I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his ideas and proposals.

Phone Signal: Rural Areas

Duncan Baker: What steps her Department is taking to ensure reliable phone signal in (a) North Norfolk and (b) other rural areas.

Julia Lopez: We very much understand the frustration of poor mobile coverage in rural areas. That is why we agreed a deal with the operators to deliver the shared  rural network, which tackles notspots and reduces the divide in connectivity between urban and rural areas. Norfolk will see coverage uplifts by the industry element of that programme, which is due to complete in June 2024.

Duncan Baker: As my hon. Friend may be aware, my constituency has many areas of outstanding natural beauty. They include Salthouse, Overstrand and Kelling, and I am sure she may want to spend her holidays there this summer. However, places such as those also have incredibly bad mobile phone reception, and residents are caught between better reception and blighting the area with mobile telecoms infrastructure. Would the Minister meet me to discuss how we can bring a better mobile signal to those areas without decreasing their natural beauty?

Julia Lopez: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I can assure him that I know how beautiful North Norfolk is. I spent some time there last summer, and it is an incredibly picturesque part of the country. We want to maintain that, and that is why the shared rural network aims to transform mobile coverage without duplicating infrastructure, therefore minimising the visual impact. My officials have spoken to the shared rural network, and they will be getting in touch with his team. I would be happy to meet him after that to see how we can do more in this area.

UK Film and TV Production

John Whittingdale: What steps she is taking to support film and TV production in the UK.

Julia Lopez: This Government’s actions have helped the film and TV industry bounce back from the pandemic. Our production achieved record success last year, and my right hon. Friend may have seen the vote of confidence given by the new Amazon Prime deal with Shepperton studios this week. Our covid-related support includes the £500 million production restart scheme and the culture recovery fund, which my right hon. Friend will know has awarded £117,000 to Maldon’s Rio cinema. We want to make sure not just that films are made here, but that they are seen on the big screen in cinemas across our towns.

John Whittingdale: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the excellent news from Amazon Prime. Can she confirm that the film and TV production restart scheme, which was possible only as a result of Brexit, has so far supported production worth nearly £2.5 billion and supported 80,000 jobs? Given this success, will she consider extending the scheme beyond its end in April, and if that is not possible, will she try to obtain equivalent cover from commercial insurers at that time?

Julia Lopez: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how successful the scheme has been. It has supported £2.8 billion of production spend and over 92,000 jobs, which means we have kept production going and had a fantastic year. As he knows, the scheme was established as a time-limited and short-term intervention in response to a market failure because of the pandemic. It will continue until 30 June, but in the  meantime we are working very closely with industry stakeholders and insurers to make sure that there is an effective transition to market cover when that scheme closes to new applicants in April.

Lucy Powell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me advance notice of her absence today. I am not sure whether her own side would see that as a blessing or a curse, given that some of her recent performances have had—how shall we describe them—mixed reviews. Our public service broadcasters are responsible for two thirds of commissions outside London, and provide a pipeline of skilled and talented workers across our regions and nations. With programming that is sold around the world, they underpin our incredibly successful creative ecosystem. The levelling-up White Paper will soon impose a statutory requirement on the Government that their own policies will meet their new levelling-up missions. How will the Secretary of State square that with her plan to sell off Channel 4 and end the BBC as we know it? Will her plans to do so be evaluated against her Government’s new legal requirements for levelling up?

Julia Lopez: I confirm that we miss the Secretary of State very much. She is flying the flag for the UK in the global Expo today, and we are all proud of the work she is doing there.
I assure the hon. Lady that we very much support our public service broadcasting sector, and it has a huge role to play in levelling up the regions. We want to support that role going forward, and we have absolutely no intention to end the BBC. A decision has not yet been made about the sale of Channel 4, but if we looked at such a sale, we would very much look at commitments to the regions. We also do fantastic stuff on PSBs with apprenticeships, and those PSBs are creating jobs across the UK, which we very much want to keep going.

Gigabit Broadband

Peter Aldous: What progress her Department has made on increasing the availability of gigabit broadband.

Selaine Saxby: What progress her Department has made on increasing the availability of gigabit broadband.

Julia Lopez: Gigabit broadband coverage has rocketed from 6% to 65% in the past three years. More than 80 different companies are now rolling out gigabit broadband, investing more than £30 billion between them. In hard-to-reach areas, we have already upgraded 600,000 premises, with a further 2.5 million premises in our procurement pipeline, as set out this week in our most recent winter update to Project Gigabit.

Peter Aldous: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply. I recognise the challenges of achieving nationwide gigabit broadband coverage, but it is essential if the levelling-up agenda is to be properly delivered. At present, the gaps in coverage in Suffolk extend to approximately 25% of premises predominantly in rural areas. What assurances can my hon. Friend provide that  gigabit-capable broadband in such rural areas will keep pace with the wider drive towards nationwide coverage?

Julia Lopez: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of good digital connectivity, and we want to ensure that there is no divide between urban and rural areas. There is already 97% superfast coverage in Suffolk, but we want to futureproof connectivity to take on board all the technologies that will be coming down the line. We are creating a competition friendly environment to encourage commercial roll-out in most areas, and we are then prioritising public money in areas where the commercial roll-out will not reach. Our regional supply of procurements is up and running, and I am pleased that Suffolk is in phase 1 of that programme. We are aiming to launch the procurement process by April.

Selaine Saxby: With the Government’s levelling-up announcement confirming plans for the UK to have nationwide gigabit-capable broadband by 2030, it is important that consumers in rural constituencies such as mine have access to every fibre internet service provider on the market, ideally via a wholesaler. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to help ensure that residents in North Devon and the wider south-west have, as consumers, fair and reasonable choices?

Julia Lopez: My hon. Friend is rightly back in her place and is holding my feet to the flames on these issues. Thanks in part to our gigabit strategy, there is a thriving market rolling out gigabit-capable broadband all across the country, but we cannot force providers to offer their services in specific locations. Where deployment is supported directly by publicly funded contracts, those contracts include requirements for wholesale access. For Project Gigabit, the procurement processes differentiate suppliers on the choice of retail offerings that they are able to bring. We are also supporting various industry initiatives to develop the wholesale market for smaller alt-nets.

Sarah Green: In 2016, The Lee Parish Council in my constituency received an assurance about broadband provision from HS2 Ltd, that it would keep it
“updated on the outcome of discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Broadband UK in relation to support for broadband provision for communities along the Phase One route.”
Apart from a few holding letters, The Lee Parish Council has not heard anything for three years. Will the Minister provide details about those discussions to reassure my constituents that they are indeed taking place?

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Lady very much for raising that. I am keen that any hon. Member should feel that they can write to me about issues in their area. We are trying to get a much better system up and running so that we can get such cases answered. I encourage her to write to me as I am very happy to look into her concerns.

Lucy Powell: May I take this opportunity to send our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for a speedy recovery from covid?
We have had a dizzying number of broadband targets, each weaker than the last. Which is the Government’s current target—is it nationwide gigabit-capable broadband by 2025 as they previously said, 85% coverage by 2025 as their national infrastructure strategy says, or the latest one of nationwide coverage by 2030? How confident is the Minister about meeting any of those targets given that the digital divide is growing, not narrowing, and she has no detailed plan for reaching communities that are not commercially viable?

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Member for probing me on these matters and send our best wishes to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). The target is 85%-plus by 2025, and we expect to have all our procurements under contract by the end of this Parliament. We are confident about meeting those targets which, given the increasing importance of digital connectivity to our prosperity, are vital to ensuring that we do not see digital divides emerge.

Allan Dorans: The Scottish Government have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in accelerating the roll-out of superfast broadband in Scotland, even though broadband is reserved. Will the Minister insist to Cabinet colleagues that levelling up plans must include finally delivering the funding necessary to roll out superfast broadband, as that is the United Kingdom Government’s responsibility?

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Member for raising the important connectivity needs of Scotland. This is a Union issue and the Government are keen to help. I recently had a productive meeting with Kate Forbes—incidentally, I congratulate her on her pregnancy—who is an excellent Minister. Ensuring connectivity across the Union is very much part of our levelling up plans, and I am happy to continue working with the Scottish Parliament on such issues.

Greg Smith: The Government’s focus on gigabit roll-out is absolutely right and I am grateful that Buckinghamshire is included in the current public review of gigabit broadband infrastructure. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that there is a plan to tackle the problem in villages such as Mentmore in my constituency, where fibre has been installed but 20 commercially unviable houses have been left out, leaving those people and homes behind? How can we narrow that gap and ensure that once fibre goes into a village, it really reaches everyone?

Julia Lopez: This is a common challenge across the country. We are trying to focus public resource on premises that are not being connected by the commercial roll-out and ensuring that we share data with commercial providers so that we know which premises we need to cover in our contracts. I am happy to look into my hon. Friend’s area to ensure that we do that.

Public Service Broadcasting

Jamie Stone: What steps she is taking to strengthen and promote public service broadcasting.

Julia Lopez: Our public service broadcasting system is a critical part of our media landscape. We are committed to making sure that it continues to thrive in the face of a rapidly changing broadcast sector. That is why we are undertaking a strategic review looking at making sure that the PSB system delivers for audiences and supports the success of our incredible creative sector. We will set out the conclusions of that review in due course.

Jamie Stone: I want to put on the record my thanks for a useful meeting with the Minister this week about social tariffs for mobile devices. Channel 4 is close to my heart, as it is to those of many hon. Members. Will she assure me that any future owner of Channel 4 will be as committed to using small, local producers and providers as Channel 4 is at present? Have the Government carried out a risk assessment on what privatising Channel 4 might mean for small, local, important British producers?

Julia Lopez: It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member this week to discuss the important issue of social tariffs as well as Union connectivity, which I know he feels passionately about. Channel 4 is valued by all of us. There is a debate to be had, however, about the best ownership structure for it. The Government believe that one of the strengths that any future buyer might see in Channel 4 is its links with independent producers—small independent producers in particular—and, were we to decide to sell it, we would very much want to see that protected.

Robert Largan: An important part of public broadcasting is radio. Last October, the Government’s review into digital, audio and radio found that the Hope valley in my constituency has very poor DAB—digital audio broadcasting—service. What are the Government doing to improve digital radio access for rural communities such as the Hope valley?

Julia Lopez: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the needs of the Hope valley, which he is right to do. We have conducted a review of this area, and we have been working with commercial radio and the BBC on this issue for a number of years. We do not expect them to be doing a great deal of extra work on DAB roll-out, but I am happy to continue looking into the matter and to consider the issues he highlights in his own patch.

Diversity: National Cricket Teams

Kim Johnson: What steps the Government are taking to ensure diverse representation in (a) women’s and (b) men’s national cricket teams to help tackle racism in that sport.

Nigel Huddleston: We must ensure that cricket, and indeed all sports, are accessible to people from all backgrounds. National team selection is not something the Government have control over—that is for governing bodies to decide—but I am sure we can all agree that the primary basis should be talent. We need that diverse pool of talent. I have had positive conversations with the England and Wales Cricket Board and the county clubs on ensuring that talent pathways are fully open to the diverse range of people who play the game at grassroots level.

Kim Johnson: The Minister makes some interesting points, but does he agree that actions speak louder than words? The game has been described as institutionally racist. Can a review of dressing room culture, being undertaken by Clare Connor, fix the deeply entrenched under-representation of black women cricketers when Ebony Rainford-Brent, the first black member of the women’s cricket team, said she had never been made to feel different until she entered the cricket world?

Nigel Huddleston: I agree with the hon. Lady on those concerns. There is a lot more to do in cricket and across sport as a whole. I have met the county chairmen and Lord Patel, as well as having dialogue with the ECB. I believe progress is being made, but I agree completely with her: I want to see actions, not just words.

Julian Knight: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend share my disquiet that Lord Patel, Yorkshire’s new chair, has been forced to publicly call out a group of individuals for seeking to delay and derail vital reforms of the club in order to combat the scourge of racism? Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to support Lord Patel in his fight, the ECB should state that international cricket can return to Headingley but on the strict proviso that members back Lord Patel’s reforms, we see a dilution of the power of the Graves Trust, and that they ignore the siren calls of those who wish to retain the shameful status quo?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his and the Committee’s work in this area. The decision to bring internationals back to Yorkshire is for the ECB and I have to respect that, but I have met Lord Patel, even just yesterday, and personally I am somewhat comforted and assured about the progress being made in Yorkshire. Indeed, I have seen good progress being made in cricket overall, but I want to see a lot more. I reiterate that the decision is for the ECB, but I am sure that it will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments.

Internet Access

Stephen Morgan: What steps she is taking to close the digital divide between people (a) with and (b) without access to the internet.

Julia Lopez: Access to the internet is increasingly important to people’s life chances. Today, over 65% of premises can access gigabit-capable networks, but we have ambitions to do much more, precisely because we want to ensure that a more profound digital divide does not emerge. The Government are encouraging broadband providers to roll out low-cost broadband social tariffs for low-income households, so that the internet is more affordable. We are highlighting those services via work coaches at jobcentres. We are also looking to boost digital skills. Adults can undertake specified digital qualifications up to level 1 free of charge.

Stephen Morgan: The Local Government Association has warned that digital exclusion is more likely to impact those on low incomes, the over-65s and people with a disability. At the start of the pandemic, only 51% of households earning between  £6,000 and £10,000 had home internet access. Meanwhile, my city is significantly below the UK average for gigabit broadband availability. With vulnerable people in Portsmouth increasingly being left behind by the Government, what specifically is the Minister doing to address affordability and bridge the digital divide?

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue. I cannot disagree with some of the LGA’s analysis. I am happy to look into his city in particular, but this is an issue I discussed with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) just this week. Providers are offering social tariffs but we do not think uptake is strong enough. We all have a responsibility in this House to promote social tariffs, so that those who need to get on to the net can. We are looking at various initiatives to make sure people can get online, because it is so important for people’s life chances.

Local Tennis Courts

Richard Graham: What progress her Department has made on implementing its plans to refurbish local tennis courts, announced on 2 October 2021.

Nigel Huddleston: We are fortunate in this country to have some of the world’s top tennis talent, including Emma Raducanu, Alfie Hewett and Gordon Reid, and I should take this opportunity to wish our athletes in Beijing the very best of luck—we have talent across so many sports. At the spending review, the Government announced £30.1 million to renovate park tennis courts in the UK, in partnership with the Lawn Tennis Association. Plans involved reviving over 4,500 courts, including those in poor or unplayable condition at more than 1,500 venues.

Richard Graham: I am grateful to the Minister. That superb mapping exercise across the country by the LTA to benefit, as he said, over 4,500 public courts could be of huge benefit to families, sport, health, local pride and community improvements. My question is a nice and simple one: when will the application forms be ready? Will my hon. Friend share with us some good news?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for his excitement about our work on tennis courts. He never misses an opportunity to ask that question—I cannot venture into the Tea Room without him doing so—but I appreciate his persistence. Delivery will commence in the next financial year, from April 2022, because I am aware, as he is, that this will make a really big difference to tennis in this country.

Barry Sheerman: May I ask the Minister to take this even more seriously? I know that the English team has not being doing well in some sports, but can we look seriously at the opportunities to get a much broader range of young people coming in to play tennis and, in particular, cricket? There seems to be a real difficulty for children in many schools to pursue cricket and tennis, and it seems that most of the people who end up rising to the top come from very privileged backgrounds.

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Member raises some important points. We do punch above our weight in global sport and that is partly due to the success and investment from Sport England and, indeed, UK Sport. We will be refreshing the school sport and activity action plan and working closely with the Department for Education, focusing very much on engaging young children in a whole variety of sports, for the reasons that he expressed.

Lindsay Hoyle: Such as rugby league.

Topical Questions

Ruth Jones: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Julia Lopez: I am standing in for the Culture Secretary, who is today promoting the UK’s national day at the Dubai Expo and welcoming the Queen’s baton ahead of the Commonwealth games. Our Department is at the heart of the levelling-up agenda, through fantastic digital connectivity for all and initiatives such as the new national youth guarantee to enrich the lives of young people in every corner of our country.
We continue to make brilliant progress on our plans for a blockbuster 2022, during which we will honour Her Majesty the Queen, who this week marked 70 years of steadfast service to our country. Two nights ago, we celebrated the best of our world-class music industry at the BRITs. To echo the comments from the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), the ministerial team would like to wish the very best of luck to Team GB, who are flying the flag for the entire country at the Beijing winter Olympics.

Ruth Jones: Musicians in Newport West and across the UK have been campaigning alongside leaders in the Musicians’ Union, such as Councillor Sarah Williams, for a touring visa that will allow them to showcase British musical prowess. When will the Minister wake up and fight for the musicians’ passport that people so desperately want and need?

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of touring. I have been doing a lot of work with officials and other Departments to ease some of the challenges that people have had since we left the EU, and I will continue to work on this issue.

John Penrose: Broadcast news has a long-standing duty of balance, which moderates public debate, tests opposing views and helps forge consensus across our country, but today’s digital world means that more and more of us get our news through social media platforms, where individual filter bubbles can feed us more of one side without ever showing an alternative view, driving extremism, radicalisation and division instead. Is it now time to extend that duty of balance to include social media platforms?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend raises an important question, but we need to distinguish between broadcasters, or indeed newspapers, that are  exercising editorial judgment, and social media platforms that are carrying content generated by other users. However, we will introduce shortly—in the coming weeks—an online safety Bill that will impose new duties on social media firms in connection with illegal content, content that is harmful to children and content, including disinformation, that is harmful to adults. I hope that will go a long way towards addressing the points that he rightly raises.

Jeff Smith: I am afraid that the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) was far too vague. Musicians and orchestras are facing a touring crisis. We need an EU-wide cultural touring agreement that includes allowances for cabotage, carnets and customs rules. That needs to happen now, so what are Ministers doing to sort the problem as a matter of urgency?

Julia Lopez: We have been working closely across Government to deal with some of the cabotage issues. The issues around agreements with member states are being addressed on a bilateral basis. We have had great breakthroughs with Spain and are working closely with Greece, but most people can work in those countries for up to 90 days. I am happy to engage with the hon. Gentleman further on the issue.

Sheryll Murray: Swimming is massively important not just for health reasons, but for safety in our island nation. Saltash swimming pool is an excellent facility. What more can the Government do to ensure the long-term future of such facilities?

Nigel Huddleston: I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue, because we spoke about it when I visited her constituency last year. She is right that swimming is a vital life skill, as well as being very good for our physical and mental health. We have provided the sport sector with £1 billion of financial support through the pandemic, and launched the £100 million national leisure recovery fund precisely to try to ensure that swimming pools stay open. Further investment through Sport England and other bodies is forthcoming. I would be happy to facilitate further discussions between my hon. Friend and Sport England.

Peter Grant: The Minister will remember that the Government were strangely reluctant to implement a ban on the Chinese firm Huawei to prevent it from participating in the United Kingdom’s critical digital infrastructure because of the potential significant security risks. We now discover that the man who has just been appointed director of communications at No. 10 lobbied very hard against that ban. In the light of that information, will the Minister undertake to review the timeline for removing Huawei from our critical infrastructure, to ensure that Britain’s security cannot be compromised by the interests of the Prime Minister’s pals?

Julia Lopez: One of my first Acts as a Minister in DCMS was to take through the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. We take these issues incredibly seriously, and I offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance  that we have a whole package of work to ensure that our telecoms networks are secure. Those matters have not been influenced by other issues.

Andy Carter: Technology is changing the way in which listeners tune in to their favourite radio stations. Will the Minister set out her plans to secure future access for UK radio stations to smart speakers?

Julia Lopez: My hon. Friend raises an important point about social media platforms potentially becoming gatekeepers for radio stations. We are looking closely at this issue to ensure that radio stations can have their own data, protect their listenership and so on. I offer him reassurance on that point.

Ronnie Cowan: This Sunday I shall be taking part in a walk with members of The Big Step to highlight the issue of gambling advertising in football. The campaign recognises the harm that gambling does every single day, and the part that football advertising plays in grooming children and normalising gambling among adults. With a gambling Bill seemingly getting further and further away, are there any measures that will be in the final Act that could be implemented now, rather than waiting to dot every i and cross every t? Will the Secretary of State meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm to discuss the matter further?

Chris Philp: I thank the hon. Member for his question and for the meetings that we have had with the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He is right to raise this serious issue, as people are suffering harm from gambling addiction. The review is getting very close now—he will not have to wait much longer—and the issues that he is raising will be squarely addressed. I am happy to meet him and the other members of the APPG at any time; if they just get in touch, we would be happy to organise a meeting.

Mary Robinson: Good broadband connectivity is vital not only for leisure, but for working from home. But one street in my constituency is a street of two halves—one with 8 megabits per second and the other with 1,000 megabits per second. How can we address these issues? Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we deal with urban notspots?

Julia Lopez: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters. We are trying to target public subsidy at areas that are not being covered, including looking at individual premises. I will look into her particular case.

Marsha de Cordova: Last year it was revealed that across the whole sporting sector, only 7.9% of board members were from a black, Asian or ethnic minority background. That is damning, given the contributions made by black men and women across sport. Representation matters; it brings different experiences and perspectives—and, most importantly, it leads to better decision making. It is Race Equality Week, and the theme this year is “Action, not just words”. Does  the Minister agree that the time for action to increase representation at board level across the sporting sector is now? What action will he take to make that happen?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Lady makes very important points. As we discussed earlier, sport should be for all, on and off the pitch. We need to make sure that there are opportunities right across sport. I believe that progress is being made—diversity and inclusivity are at the top of the agenda for many sportspeople I talk to—but she is right that we need more action, not just warm words.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome greater efforts by the Government to improve internet access, but I met the families federations of the Navy, Army and the RAF, and they are concerned about access to the internet across the military estate. May I invite the Department to do a study on internet access on bases for our armed forces, and to report back to Parliament?

Julia Lopez: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue in the Chamber; it has not been raised with me before. I would be happy to look into improving access to the internet for our military.

Lindsay Hoyle: I must say that Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions are a major agenda item, and I do not think that we give it long enough. I hope that others will listen to that. So many people could not get their question in; I can only say sorry. I believe that it should be a full hour.

Attorney General

The Attorney General was asked—

Crown Prosecution Service

Alexander Stafford: What recent assessment she has made of the performance of the CPS in Yorkshire.

Jack Brereton: What recent assessment she has made of the performance of the CPS in the west midlands.

Suella Braverman: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate recently published a report on CPS performance in the west midlands, and it is due to report on Yorkshire and Humberside in April. I am pleased to say that, despite the pressures of the pandemic, the report on the west midlands found that commendable improvements had been made, including in seeking orders to protect complainants and witnesses, and in handling third-party disclosure.

Alexander Stafford: Youth crime plagues several parts of Rother Valley; there are hotspots around Greenlands Park in North Anston, the market area in Dinnington, and the Queen’s Corner in Maltby. How is the CPS tackling serious youth crime and youth antisocial behaviour in Rother Valley and across the whole of South Yorkshire?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is an energetic campaigner and spokesman for those of his constituents who are, sadly, afflicted by crime. The simple answer to his question is: more prosecutors, better training and  closer liaison with the police. The CPS has an area youth justice co-ordinator, who is responsible for local training and sharing best practice. Last month, the CPS team in South Yorkshire secured a murder conviction and a life sentence with a 17-year minimum for Kyle Pickles, who was responsible for the tragic murder of 15-year-old Loui Phillips. I hope that Loui’s family can take some solace from the fact that justice was done in that tragic case.

Jack Brereton: I thank the Attorney General for her response. I have written to her about the need for the CPS to better understand local circumstances when making decisions. Will she look again at the possibility of co-locating CPS lawyers in local police stations, in order to ensure that they make the best possible decisions, based on local knowledge?

Suella Braverman: I have seen my hon. Friend’s letter. The point that he raises is critical to the success of the work of the CPS and the police. Closer liaison and better working between police and investigators creates better outcomes for victims and at trial. That is why I am pleased that the west midlands is an Operation Soteria area—that operation is pioneering and institutionalising closer working, by ensuring early investigative advice, improving action plans, and ensuring closer and better scrutiny of the decisions of the police and the CPS. It is a great area where there is some good work.

Financial Crime

Barry Sheerman: What steps she is taking to help ensure effective prosecution of financial crime.

Grahame Morris: What steps she is taking to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the (a) Serious Fraud Office and (b) CPS in tackling fraud and economic crime.

Alex Chalk: In 2020-21, the CPS prosecuted over 6,500 defendants for fraud, with an 85.6% conviction rate. Meanwhile, in the last five years, the Serious Fraud Office have secured court orders requiring the payment of over £1.3 billion from defendants to the taxpayer. We are determined to build on that to make the United Kingdom a more hostile environment for all forms of economic crime, including fraud.

Barry Sheerman: But the truth is that the scandal of the bounce back loans is enormous. We know now that financial crime is being driven by very sophisticated crime syndicates. My constituents want to know when the Government are going to get serious about this. Where is the economic crime Bill? Where is the real focus on trying to get these billions of pounds back? They have been stripped from the Government, under the most incompetent Chancellor of the Exchequer I have seen in my 40 years in Parliament.

Alex Chalk: To deal with that last point, I find that an extraordinary point to make. It was this Chancellor who ensured in the hon. Member’s constituency  that the money was rolled out to save jobs in Huddersfield and we make absolutely no apology for that—millions of pounds to save lives.
Where the hon. Member is right is that fraud shatters lives and destroys trust. We are determined to deal with that. That is why this Government put £400 million in the spending review to support the National Economic Crime Centre and the National Crime Agency to ensure we crack down on fraud. He will see an awful lot more prosecutions, I assure him.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Minister for that response. However, overall, reports of fraud went up by 33% from 2020-21 but the number of police officers dealing with economic crime has increased by just over 6%. What is he doing to ensure the police and the prosecuting authorities are properly resourced to deal with the country’s rising tide of criminal fraud?

Alex Chalk: At the 2019 spending review, the CPS received over £80 million. At this spending review, the Government awarded an additional 12% to boost the number of prosecutors and the capability. In addition, as I indicated, £400 million is to be allocated to the NECC and the NCA. That is over and above the funding that has gone into the taxpayer protection taskforce: £100 million and 1,200 staff. This Government are serious about cracking down on economic crime and we are delighted to support those efforts.

Bob Neill: Might I say, Mr Speaker, that the Law Officers are entitled to perhaps a good half an hour of the House’s time as well?
The Solicitor General probably has more experience of prosecuting serious fraud hands on than anyone else in this House. From my own experience at the Bar, I know he is right when he says that fraud is not a victimless crime. Does he agree that we need a joined-up approach across Government to tackle this effectively, not just the excellent work that is being done to improve the Crime Prosecution Service’s results, but support from the Home Office to ensure that Action Fraud is not the black hole it is at the moment for many people who lose money in what are termed small-scale, lower-value frauds, but are massively important to them? At the other end of the scale, we need to look at tightening up our laws on corporate criminal responsibility, so we can catch the high-level fraudsters as well. We need approaches on all those fronts.

Alex Chalk: As so often, my hon. Friend speaks authoritatively. He is absolutely right that fraud shatters lives and can destroy people’s future in the process. He is right that we need to ensure that the most serious frauds are properly prosecuted—which is why the Serious Fraud Office has received additional funding in the spending review—but also that so-called lower-level crimes are properly resourced. That is why the special crime division of the CPS is doing important work, and why it is increasingly getting the resources it needs to ramp up its capability to take the fight to fraudsters.

Peter Bone: This is hard to believe, but on 4 February this year Peter Swailes junior was sentenced for a crime that involved financial  fraud. A person was kept in his shed for up to 40 years. The CPS managed to get a conviction, but he was not sentenced to any time in prison. I wonder whether the Attorney General would look at the case to see if it was unduly lenient.

Lindsay Hoyle: I must admit, I would like an answer but we have to be careful that supplementaries really are linked to the question, which was about financial crime. I think the person mentioned in the hon. Gentleman’s question will have suffered financially as well so I am sure the Minister can answer accordingly.

Alex Chalk: We will of course look into that case. Sentencing is a matter for the independent courts, but there is a power to refer cases if they are unduly lenient. I am happy to give that case close attention.

Andrew Slaughter: Lord Agnew resigned as a Government Minister because the Treasury
“appears to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy should resign for saying that fraud is not a crime people experience in their day-to-day lives, but what about the Law Officers’ culpability? Will the Solicitor General tell us why, according to the latest figures we have obtained from his Department, the Crown Prosecution Service has cut the number of specialist fraud prosecutors by more than a quarter in the past six years, from 224 at the end of 2015 to 167 at the end of 2021?

Alex Chalk: I send our best wishes to the shadow Attorney General as she recovers.
The hon. Gentleman is not right in the way he characterises the Government’s approach. He did not mention, as I respectfully suggest he ought to have, the £100 million that was invested in the taxpayer protection taskforce. That is 1,200 staff who have dealt with 13,000 inquiries in respect of fraud and recovered £500 million already and expect to recover significantly more. It is not just about the CPS; what about the National Cyber Security Centre, which took down 73,000 scams last year? I am pleased to note that the CPS has received an additional 12% in funding over the course of this spending review period. It is ramping up its capability and taking the fight to fraudsters.

Rule of Law: Government

Dan Carden: What steps she is taking to help ensure that the Government act in accordance with the rule of law.

Rupa Huq: What steps she is taking to help ensure that the Government act in accordance with the rule of law.

Suella Braverman: The rule of law lies at the heart of the UK constitution and the Law Officers have a particular role in respect of upholding the rule of law. Together with the Solicitor General, I take that responsibility very seriously wherever we are called on to give advice.

Dan Carden: On the morning of 8 December, the Attorney General went to Downing Street to advise the Prime Minister after the emergence of the now infamous video of staff in Downing Street joking about parties. That lunch time, the Prime Minister came to this Chamber to say that no parties had taken place in Downing Street and that no covid rules had been broken. Did the Attorney General approve of those comments? If so, was she colluding with the Prime Minister, or did he mislead her?

Suella Braverman: The hon. Gentleman makes a valiant attempt, but he should be aware of the Law Officers’ convention, which means I am prevented from commenting on the fact or the content of any legal advice provided by Law Officers to members of the Government.

Rupa Huq: From their early work on Prorogation to the now daily revelations about lockdown-busting parties, this Government have had a fair few brushes with the rule of law. I know the Attorney General cannot comment on an ongoing criminal investigation, but will she tell us whether, when the investigation is concluded and all the 50 email questionnaires come back, anyone found to have breached lockdown regulations, whatever their rank, will face the same consequences as Joe Public did? Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), if there have been breaches of the ministerial code, will there be resignations?

Suella Braverman: The Prime Minister has made his position clear and I am not going to add any more in the light of the live police investigation. The hon. Lady mentioned the rule of law; fundamental to the rule of law is democracy. I am proud to support this Prime Minister, who has honoured democracy by delivering Brexit and is now leading not just the UK but the world in beating covid. Had the Labour party been in charge, it would have cancelled Brexit, not delivered it, and we would have been in more lockdown, not less. On the big calls, Labour gets it wrong.

Andrew Slaughter: Thanks for that peroration but, to come back to reality, this week the Leader of the Opposition was obstructed while entering this House by disorder on the streets outside following the Prime Minister’s inflammatory remarks at that Dispatch Box. It is the Attorney General’s job to advise Ministers, including the Prime Minister, on acting in accordance with the rule of law, so what advice does she have now to prevent his behaviour from leading to any further breakdown in law and order?

Suella Braverman: All violence is unacceptable, and I am grateful to those police officers who stepped in to assist the Leader of the Opposition. No one should have to endure that experience. The Prime Minister has spoken on the subject; I am not going to add any more to his comments. What I will say is that on the big calls Labour gets it wrong, and on the things that matter, this Prime Minister and this Government are leading us through covid and international diplomacy against Russian aggression.

Stuart McDonald: Was the Attorney General able to read an interesting article this week by her noble  Friend, former Conservative Minister Baroness Altmann, warning of a “slippery slope” towards authoritarian rule and an elected dictatorial elite seeking to override Parliament? Whether it is undermining judicial review, shredding human rights protections, endless ouster clauses, restricted appeal rights or tearing up international treaties, none of it is upholding the rule of law. Is not everything the Attorney General is doing putting the Government above the law?

Suella Braverman: I strongly refute that suggestion. I am not aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the freedoms and protections that we all enjoy rely fundamentally on the rule of law. I know he understands that: it is an important constitutional principle that demands equality under the law and access to an independent judiciary. The Government are subject to the law. Those are the foundational principles that I adhere to and that I know this Government stick to.

Retained EU Law: Devolved Administrations

Allan Dorans: What recent discussions she has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the devolved Administrations on proposed legislation to make it easier to amend or remove retained EU law.

Suella Braverman: The Brexit freedoms Bill will once and for all take back control of the UK legal system, ending the special status of retained EU law and making it easier for the democratically elected UK Government to amend or remove it. The devolved Administrations have been kept informed of the progress of the reviews into retained EU law that will inform the Bill. The Government have engaged regularly with the DAs on a wide range of EU exit and EU engagement issues and we look forward to continuing that close working relationship.

Allan Dorans: On Friday 28 January, Ministers of the three devolved Administrations were called to a meeting with the Attorney General at very short notice—the very next day, in fact—to discuss the so-called Brexit freedom Bill, which will have significant impact on hundreds of areas controlled by the devolved Governments. The meeting has been described as
“a rushed exercise…with nothing more than a vague verbal briefing”,
with
“no effort by the UK government to properly consult devolved governments on the details of the plans nor seek their views on their impacts on devolved areas of policy and law.”
Will the Attorney General make an unequivocal commitment today that the devolved Administrations will be consulted extensively before any further decisions are taken that would affect their existing policies, and specifically in relation to retained EU law?

Suella Braverman: Of course there will be continued and meaningful engagement with all the devolved Administrations in this process. It is an important opportunity and an important moment for our whole United Kingdom, and I very much look forward to the input of all the DAs.

Covid-19 Contracts: Serious Fraud Office

Neale Hanvey: What recent discussions she has had with the Serious Fraud Office on the potential level of fraud losses arising from covid-19 related contracts awarded by the Department of Health and Social Care in 2020-21.

Alex Chalk: I meet regularly with the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss case work and corporate matters. I can confirm that the SFO is indeed investigating a number of suspected fraudulent applications for covid loans, but I can neither confirm nor deny that it is investigating frauds specifically connected to covid-19 contracts awarded by the DHSC.

Neale Hanvey: The Good Law Project has now uncovered the existence of an additional 18 VIP lane contracts, bringing the total to 68. Between them, they were awarded a total of £4.9 billion in personal protective equipment contracts. Gareth Davies, the head of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General, has said that the Department of Health and Social Care was
“open to the risk of fraud.”,
and that he has not received
“adequate assurance that the level of fraud losses are not material.”
What steps does the Attorney General, or the Minister, advise should be taken to uphold the rule of law and assure the House that contracts awarded through the Government’s VIP lane were not fraudulent?

Alex Chalk: It is extremely important that we in this House do not inadvertently misrepresent a judgment that has been made in the High Court. In the case that the hon. Gentleman refers to, the Court indicated that the arrangements did not confer any advantage at the decision-making stage of the process; that the company’s offers were very likely to have meant it being awarded contracts even without the arrangements; and that there was sufficient financial due diligence in respect of both sets of contracts. Without seeking to go behind the decision of the Court in that case, it is important that it is placed in its proper context. This Government will abide by the rule of law.

Proceeds of Crime

Caroline Ansell: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office in recovering the proceeds of crime.

Alex Chalk: The SFO has had a very positive year in delivering on its commitment to recover the proceeds of crime. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) will listen, so far in 2021-22 the SFO has obtained more than £44.5 million in new financial orders from the courts, and at the same time it has successfully recovered more than £45 million by enforcing these and existing orders. Those are the largest recorded sums obtained and recovered in a single year by the SFO.

Caroline Ansell: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his response and hope that there is some hope therein for my constituents who, just two years ago almost to the day, wrote to me about their personal case  of how the London Capital & Finance scandal had impacted them. In October of 2021, the only update offered by the SFO was that investigations were ongoing. What assessment can he make of that progress, and what hope can I offer my constituents?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for very properly pressing this case on behalf of her constituents. The SFO continues to investigate the dealings of London Capital & Finance plc and associated companies. The size and complexity of those cases, including the sheer number of victims and witnesses, means that it can take a significant period for a full investigation to be carried out. I meet the SFO director regularly to discuss casework, and I can assure my hon. Friend that driving forward the fastest possible case progression is a priority for me and for the Attorney General. I want to end with this point: over the last five years, thanks to the work of the SFO, a full £1.3 billion has been returned to taxpayers over and above the costs of running the SFO.

Clive Efford: The Minister will be aware of actions that have been taken against the Serious Fraud Office and individuals who work for it by those who seek to hide money—ill-gotten gains—that they wish to launder. It is disturbing that they can take action against individuals who work for agencies that are there to investigate such crimes and criminal behaviour. What action can be taken to protect those individuals from such abusive litigation?

Alex Chalk: I am happy to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman. Where criticisms are made of the Serious Fraud Office, we will have no hesitation in acting robustly and promptly. That is why, for example, just yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General ensured that an investigation was set up in respect of the findings in the Unaoil case.

Defendants: Mental Health

Selaine Saxby: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the CPS in handling cases where the defendant has a mental health condition or disorder.

Alex Chalk: New and refreshed training has been rolled out for prosecutors, information sharing between agencies is being improved and the CPS is developing a mental health flag on its case management system. These positive steps were recently recognised in a criminal justice joint inspection report.

Selaine Saxby: Does my hon. and learned Friend welcome the greater use of mental health treatment requirement orders for offenders subject to community orders or suspended sentences? Will he engage with Ministers across justice and health services to ensure that sufficient funding is in place to enable the long-term adoption of this approach in Devon?

Alex Chalk: Yes and yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to welcome the use of mental health treatment requirement orders, because they provide courts in Devon and elsewhere with a powerful tool to rehabilitate offenders at the same time as ensuring they are properly punished for their crimes. Thanks to record support through the NHS long-term plan funding, plans are on track to introduce primary care MHTRs to half of England by 2023.

Lindsay Hoyle: Final question, the one and only Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: In addition to those with mental health disorders, people with other disabilities such as hearing impairment require additional support in court. This House has taken steps to make that happen for those who are hearing impaired. Can the Minister advise what services are deemed necessary for trial proceedings to take place for those with hearing impairment disabilities?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. Whether someone is a victim, a witness or a defendant, they have the right to be able to hear what is going on in court. There are of course facilities already in place—hearing loops and so on—but the court retains the discretion to ensure that special measures are in place so that defendants can have the right to a fair trial and witnesses can have their voices heard.

Russia Sanctions Legislation

David Lammy: (Urgent Question): To ask Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the status of the Russian sanctions legislation the Government said would be put in place by 10 February.

James Cleverly: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out on 31 January, we are now laying legislation to broaden the designation criteria for the Russia sanctions regime. As Minister for Europe, I have signed the legislation that we will lay before Parliament and intend to come into force this afternoon. We are toughening and expanding our sanctions regime in response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This legislation will significantly broaden the range of people, businesses and other entities that we can sanction in response to any further Russian aggression. As the Foreign Secretary has set out, this will amount to the toughest sanctions regime against Russia that we have had and mark the biggest change in our approach since leaving the European Union.
The Foreign Secretary is in Moscow as we speak, calling on Russia to pursue a diplomatic solution to this crisis. We have made it clear, however, that if Russia continues to ignore calls to de-escalate and respect Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, it will face serious consequences. Alongside the United States and other international partners, the UK is preparing an unprecedented package of co-ordinated sanctions that mean those who share responsibility for Russia’s actions will bear a heavy cost.

David Lammy: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
I do not need to remind anyone in the House of the seriousness of the build-up of Russian forces on Ukraine’s borders. We stand united in opposition to Russian aggression and in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty. We urgently want to de-escalate this crisis and we support diplomatic efforts to achieve that goal, but our diplomacy must be matched by deterrence. On 31 January, the Foreign Secretary announced to Parliament the Government’s plan to put in place what she called
“the toughest sanctions regime against Russia”.
She said:
“The package that we are putting forward in legislation will be in place by 10 February”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2022; Vol. 708, c. 56-58.]
It is now 10 February and no such legislation has been put in place. As the Foreign Secretary meets her counterpart in Moscow, media reports suggest that the plan has fallen through. The House rises today, leaving no parliamentary time for the Government to put the legislation in place until after the recess.
This raises very troubling questions about the risk that Russian action against Ukraine could take place without the necessary legal measures in place to allow Britain to respond. What is the reason for the delay? What reassurance can the Minister offer this House that without the legislation in place the Government could implement severe sanctions if they are needed?
Promises made to this House should be kept. Hon. Members deserve the opportunity to scrutinise and debate these measures, which need to be in place. I do not want these sanctions to join the long list of measures to counter Russian aggression that have been ignored or delayed, such as the economic crime Bill, the reform of Companies House, the register of overseas entities Bill, the foreign agent registration law, and the new counter-espionage laws—the list goes on. With 130,000 troops threatening Ukraine, the Opposition stand ready to work with the Government in the national interest to get the appropriate measures in place. We can only do so if the Government keep their promise to bring forth this sanctions legislation—where is it?

James Cleverly: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s unanimity of voice with regard to his opposition to Russia’s aggressive actions on the border of Ukraine. He is absolutely right that in times of high tension like this it is incredibly important that our allies and others understand that there really is unanimity of purpose across the House, and I thank him for that.
As I said in my statement, I have signed the legislation that we intend to lay in Parliament to come into force this afternoon. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary is pursuing the diplomatic pressure face to face with Russia. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, senior officials and I have regular interactions with our friends and allies both in Europe and across the Atlantic, and I can assure the House that they regularly express gratitude for the robustness of the UK’s approach. We will continue to pursue a diplomatic track, but the Foreign Secretary is making it clear to the Russians as we speak that if they miss the opportunity to de-escalate, there will be repercussions.

Richard Graham: I welcome the news that my right hon. Friend is proceeding with the long-awaited additional sanctions, and I look forward to the statutory instrument coming to the House as soon as possible. What does my right hon. Friend believe is the position in relation to the Minsk II agreements, and what has been Her Majesty’s Government’s reaction to the proposals made by President Macron? Does my right hon. Friend agree that they could in fact make the situation more perilous for Ukraine?

James Cleverly: We have regularly called on Russia to abide by the commitments to which it has previously voluntarily subscribed, and there is no justification for the aggressive posture that it is now displaying on the borders of Ukraine. We and France, as well as other members of NATO, speak regularly; indeed, just yesterday I was on a multilateral call with French representatives. We are co-ordinating our approach and our language and ensuring that we understand and calibrate our actions in concert, and I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that that will continue to be our approach on this very serious issue.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Owen Thomson.

Richard Thomson: I echo much of what was said by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I find this situation frustrating in many ways. Obviously we all want to do everything we can to counter Russian aggression,  and we all want to be doing what we can to support legislation that would make that possible. But the action taken today of laying such legislation without our being given any opportunity for scrutiny or debate, or even knowing what it can achieve, makes it very difficult for us to help the Government and to approach this constructively, which is what we want to do. I must be brutally honest and say that it is a challenging task to come up with a series of questions about legislation that we have not yet seen, although we all want see that legislation work.
Can the Minister assure us that whatever the legislation does include, it will enable actions to be taken to tackle the improper use of, for instance, Scottish limited partnerships—colleagues of mine have been calling for that for years—and the multitude of other avenues through which Russian money is being used to influence and change attitudes, as well as the cyber-attacks that are carried out across these islands and in other European countries? Without seeing the legislation, it is difficult for our support to be as full as we might have wanted it to be.

James Cleverly: I completely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Our actions are closely co-ordinated and calibrated with the actions of our international partners. The UK has made it clear, as indeed have our friends and allies internationally, that if Russia were to pursue further aggressive actions in Ukraine, that would come at a huge cost. Of course, as with all conflicts, there would be a human cost—there would be casualties and fatalities both on the Russian side and, inevitably, in Ukraine—and we are desperately seeking to avoid that. However, if Russia does not heed our call to de-escalate, there will be meaningful sanctions in response. There will be costs. As I have said, throughout all this we are co-ordinating very closely with our international allies, and ensuring that our response is in place should Russia not heed our calls to de-escalate.

John Whittingdale: The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that we are at the “most dangerous moment” in the next few days. I do not expect a detailed answer to my question but, to bring home the devastating consequences should military aggression occur and to bring home that we will not tolerate this increased military aggression against the sovereign nation of Ukraine, will we consider taking cyber-measures against Russia, not necessarily after an invasion but now?

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend will be unsurprised that I am not willing to speculate on the nature or scope of the response of the Government or our allies, but Russia should understand that, if it were to attack or present further aggression towards Ukraine, there would be a meaningful response not just from the UK but from our international allies. I will not speculate further at this time.

Chris Bryant: The Minister knows full well that every single Member of this House stands foursquare with the Government alongside the people of Ukraine. We want to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine. However, the Foreign Secretary told us that the legislation would be in place by 10 February, which is important because of the recess. We were also told  that it would be an affirmative measure, which means that it would not come into force unless the House has voted for it.
The Minister is wrong to say that it will just happen this afternoon. It is completely autocratic for the Government to publish legislation without any opportunity for anybody to scrutinise it. Frankly, they have just been lazy. We are Johnny-come-latelies when it comes to sanctions in this area. When will we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the measure so that we can make sure the whole House sends the same message to Russia? At the moment, it just looks as if the Government are not governing anymore.

James Cleverly: I understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed, I truly do. Our actions have been, at all stages, calibrated to deter Russian aggression and to act in concert and collaboration with our international partners. I appreciate that this House has complete unanimity of purpose in its desire to dissuade Russia from aggressive actions towards Ukraine. We are moving at pace to ensure, where possible, that sanctions regimes are in place ahead of this. We will continue to take actions that dissuade Russian aggression towards Ukraine, and we will always do so in close co-ordination and co-operation with our international allies.

Alberto Costa: What happens in Ukraine, and indeed what happens in eastern Europe, matters. It matters to this House and it matters to our country’s interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if global Britain means anything, it must mean that we stand up for freedom, democracy and the rule of law?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I recently returned from a trip to Washington where, across the political divide, the UK’s actions in dissuading Russian aggression have been recognised, and gratitude was expressed to me. He is right that freedom, democracy and the rule of law are foundation stone principles that we will defend. We have already given support to Ukraine, including defensive weapon systems, to help it protect itself against further Russian aggression. The expanded sanctions package is part of that message of deterrence so that Russia understands there will be repercussions if it were to pursue further aggressive actions towards Ukraine.

Chi Onwurah: Despite the Russia report, despite the Opposition’s calls and despite the Government’s promises, the UK remains a destination for Russian dirty money and influence. The Minister says that the promised sanctions legislation will be in place this afternoon, although it has not been published, we are rising for recess and there is no time for a debate. Will he explain to me how we will be able to demonstrate that, as he says, sanctions will be put in place should there be any incursion or action by Russia? That is of the utmost importance to our national security and our standing.

James Cleverly: We have worked to ensure that this extension of the scope of potential sanctions is effective and that it displays a meaningful deterrent message to Russia. We are working to bring the measures into force  this afternoon, so that they are in place as soon as practically possible. The message that I get back from the international community is that it massively values the UK’s very firm response on this issue. That is the message I received on my recent trip to Washington. It is the message I receive on calls with international partners, and we will continue to be very robust in our actions to dissuade Russian aggressio‘n.

Felicity Buchan: I welcome the concerted diplomatic pressure that we are putting on Russia, with the Foreign Secretary there today, the Defence Secretary there tomorrow and the Prime Minister in Warsaw today. I also welcome the fact that we are laying this statutory instrument this afternoon. What is important with sanctions is not only that we have the legislation, but our willingness to use the sanctions, and quickly. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that we are prepared to use these sanctions, and that we will do so with alacrity if needed?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The message should be heard loud and clear, and I have no doubt that as we speak my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing that on her trip to Moscow. This extended sanctions package is meaningful. If Russia was to pursue its aggressive posture towards Ukraine, there would be serious consequences, and this extension of the scope of our sanctions is absolutely part of that.

Clive Efford: The US, far from what the Minister has just said, is said to be expressing exasperation at the failure of the Government to take tough action against the flow of Russian money. On top of that, it has taken two years for the Government to take any action on the recommendations of the Russia report. This is damaging our international standing. Whatever is happening this afternoon in terms of sanctions, can he give us an undertaking that we will be tackling that Russian money and ensuring that it cannot flow?

James Cleverly: A number of Members speak with seeming great authority on the tone or the thinking of our allies. I have just returned from Washington, where I have spoken with elected Members and senior officials in the White House, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the United States recognises the robust position that the UK is taking through the extension of our sanctions regime and that we will ensure, if Russia pursues an aggressive posture, that there are consequences that are meaningful.

Jerome Mayhew: It seems to me that for the first time in my adult life, it is our values—the values of this country and the values of the west—that are being challenged in a meaningful way in Russia and, I am sorry to say, elsewhere in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in that light that we should see what is happening on the borders of Ukraine, and it is also in that light that we should respond in terms of sanctions?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are incredibly important principles at stake here, and the UK and our international friends and allies are  making a statement to Russia in clear and unambiguous terms that we expect it to abide by the commitments that it has previously made to respect the territorial integrity of another sovereign state and to de-escalate and step back from the aggressive posture that it has taken. If it does not, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making clear that there will be repercussions.

Andrew Slaughter: The UK is the destination of choice for Russian criminals and kleptocrats who then use their wealth to silence journalists and avoid scrutiny, including by launching endless oppressive lawsuits. Why should we have any confidence that the Minister’s Government and party, which have done nothing to counter that—indeed, the issue has grown year on year—will suddenly impose meaningful sanctions? The US said that there was “dismay and frustration” at the failure to tackle it.

James Cleverly: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have already made. I have just returned from Washington and I assure the House that the UK has been recognised and thanked for the robust position that it has taken, is taking and has signalled that it is willing to take.

Greg Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to having signed the legislation and I look forward to seeing it this afternoon. That is part of the Government’s clear and continuous message to Russia that any further incursion into Ukraine would be a huge strategic error. NATO must be united in calling for a diplomatic way forward, so can he confirm that the UK Government have called for NATO partners to be as vocal as the United Kingdom has been in delivering that message to the Kremlin and, further, to match our defence spending commitments?

James Cleverly: Last month, I attended the NATO Russia council on behalf of the United Kingdom, and the unanimity of voice with which the NATO allies condemned the aggressive posture that Russia has taken towards Ukraine was striking. Defence spending is a broader point of discussion. We are incredibly proud of the fact that the UK maintains that 2% or more on defence spending. We will ensure that we are as passionate in our diplomatic attempts as we are in our passion to support our friends and allies in NATO, including the eastern NATO allies that have borders with Russia.

Barry Sheerman: If, God forbid, Vladimir Putin is watching the parliamentary channel at the moment, does the Minister think that he will get the sense that the Government and the House are acting urgently? I am not getting that clearly. There is an all-party desire to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis and for us to be seen to act as firmly as possible on sanctions. I ask him to ask someone in No. 10 or elsewhere to give a sense of urgency to it. All parties support it, so the Government should get on with it.

James Cleverly: The feedback that I get, not necessarily from the Opposition but certainly from the international community, is that it recognises and is grateful for the posture that the UK has taken with regard to Russia’s accumulation of troops on the Ukrainian border. That is the message that I have been getting loud and clear from across the international community.

Christine Jardine: Does the Minister understand that after years of delay, yet again the Government’s rhetoric on the issue does not seem to match their actions on Russian money in this country? The Foreign Secretary is in Russia today, supposedly putting a very strong message to the Kremlin, and the inaction and inability to bring forward legislation to this place so that we can scrutinise it undermines that message.

James Cleverly: I disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the situation, because in conversation after conversation that I have had, in the United States and with other friends and allies across the world, they recognise the work that the UK is doing and are grateful for it. On the expansion of the scope of potential sanctions against Russia, we are demonstrating to the Russians that we are serious in our actions as well.

John Cryer: Russian troops have been massing on the border for months. Meanwhile, Putin and his friends have been behaving like international gangsters and throwing their weight around for years. Why leave it until now? Why draft a measure and, hopefully—we have not seen it yet—put it before the House just a few hours before the recess, if we are lucky? From what the Minister is saying, however, because he has not really answered the question, it sounds more and more like it will come into force after the recess. In the meantime, there could be an asset flight and Russian troops going into Ukraine.

James Cleverly: As I said, the actions that we are taking are intended to come into force this afternoon. Our posture towards Russia has been consistent. We have made it clear for some time—as the Foreign Secretary did on 31 January—that the UK intends to increase the scope of our sanctions regime so that we can take meaningful action, in co-ordination and concert with international partners. That is intended to send a clear message to Russia that its aggressive posture is unacceptable, that it needs to de-escalate and that, if it were to pursue aggressive actions against Ukraine, there would be meaningful consequences.

Diana R. Johnson: I really do not understand why this is all so last-minute. Is the Minister comfortable with his Government’s approach of ignoring the recommendations of the Russia report? It is important to note that the Intelligence and Security Committee—a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament—made clear recommendations after taking a lot of evidence and scrutinising the issue of Russian influence on this country. Why have those recommendations not been taken up by his Government?

James Cleverly: As I have said a number of times, in my interactions with our friends and allies both on my recent trip to the United States of America when I represented the UK at the NATO-Russia Council and on international calls, the UK’s firm posture towards Russia has been recognised, and our international partners are grateful for it. To ensure that our sanctions regime and any potential sanctions that we impose are effective, co-ordination with our international partners is incredibly important. I am intensely proud of the position that the UK has taken in support of Ukraine, in support of the international rules-based order and in support of our friends and allies around the world. The UK will continue to be at the forefront of attempts to de-escalate the situation and support the Ukrainian people.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers. Has he had communications with other NATO leaders regarding Macron’s lone-wolf approach to Putin and ensuing comments that demonstrate a shift from standing NATO policy towards reaction to potential attack? Will he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to NATO’s approach against Russian aggression?

James Cleverly: The UK remains a committed member of NATO, and I assure the hon. Member and the House that the UK, France, the United States of America and other members of the Quint speak regularly. My most recent conversation with international partners was yesterday, when we had a detailed debrief of President Macron’s talks with Vladimir Putin. We work in close co-ordination with international partners, and I assure him that that close co-ordination, whether through sanctions or our diplomatic efforts, will continue.

Government Contracts:  Randox Laboratories

Anneliese Dodds: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will make a statement on the process for awarding Government contracts to Randox Laboratories Ltd, following the release of documents in response to the Humble Address of 17 November 2021.

Maggie Throup: In response to the greatest public health emergency that we have faced for a generation, the Government engaged with many businesses—big and small—as part of an unprecedented national effort. On 3 February, we responded to the Humble Address and laid the documents before the House. We are committed to transparency and helping the House perform its valuable scrutiny, and the Department dedicated significant resources to reviewing about 11,000 records to identify the 35 relevant documents. They show how we took every possible step to build the huge infrastructure for testing that we now have in this country—the biggest testing programme in Europe. The programme has done so much to stop the spread of this deadly virus and given us all hope that we can learn to live with covid-19.
Randox has been globally recognised in the diagnostics industry for nearly 40 years and even as early as March 2020 had lab-based PCR testing capacity for covid-19. Robust rules and processes are in place to ensure that all contracts are awarded in line with procurement regulations and transparency guidelines, and that any potential conflicts of interest with respect to commercial matters are appropriately managed. Direct awards, such as in this case, are permitted by public contract regulations for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events. I am sure that no hon. Member would deny that the situation was one of extreme urgency.
As the House would expect, Ministers of course have a role in approving contracts, but their approval relies on the impartial evaluation conducted by civil servants. I reinforce to hon. Members that Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts, and that the documents given to the House show no evidence that any of those principles have been breached. Instead, they plainly show that we did everything in our power to keep this country safe at a time of crisis, as the British people would expect.

Anneliese Dodds: The Randox files published last week, later than the Government said they would be—that was not acknowledged by the Minister—paint a picture of a Conservative Government who are simply unfit for office. That Conservative Government played fast and loose with public money. They handed Randox a £133 million contract without competition. The Minister talked about every possible step being taken in testing infrastructure, but let us remember what happened. Randox tried to requisition equipment from universities that, because of the files that were released, we now know had to be stopped. Vital tests in care homes were voided, and 750,000 tests were recalled. The Government’s response was to hand it a second contract worth £350 million, again without competition.
We now know that both the civil service chief operating officer and the Minister, Lord Agnew, sounded a warning alarm. That Minister said that the Department was paying “dramatically over the odds” for Randox’s services, but the Government ploughed on. Why was he ignored, and did the Department do what he asked, and introduce a competitive tender process by March 2021? There does not seem to have been the operation of robust rules that the Minister referred to, or an impartial evaluation. Was that put into place or not?
Secondly, there are still no minutes of that crucial meeting on 9 April, just a rough draft email sent seven months later. Two years on, the Department cannot even explain who was there. We now know that Health Ministers held another four meetings that were never declared in the Register. How many more secret meetings were there?
That brings us to Owen Paterson who, as we now know from these papers, is called “O-Patz”—really, Mr Speaker, is there any clearer sign that we are in the twilight days of this Government? The files show that this former MP, a paid advocate for Randox, was arranging meetings with the Health Secretary in the Division Lobby, a place to which only MPs have access, and where it is impossible for civil servants to join them—hardly the appropriate management of commercial interests that the Minister referred to. Will she explain what was agreed in those discussions, and will she correct her Department’s claim that there is no evidence of any breach of the rules?

Maggie Throup: I make no apologies for how we as a country rose to the challenge that we faced in early 2020. I think that sometimes we forget what this country—indeed, the world—was going through. We must remember those days, and I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that what we have put in place since will ensure that we can cope far better in the future. We do need to learn lessons, and we will learn lessons.
However, one of the most important lessons that I take from when we worked together is that we can do incredible things. The NHS has been phenomenal, our hospitals have been phenomenal, and local government has been phenomenal, as has the private sector. We have all worked together and we have really worked hard, and that is why we can now see that—with the vaccine programme as well, along with the therapeutics and antivirals—we are combating this virus. We could not have come this far without everybody working together, and this country’s testing structure has been crucial in helping us to get through this time. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who has been involved in this huge effort both at testing sites and working in the lab, and everybody who has come forward to get tested to keep their loved ones safe.
I would like to respond to some of the questions posed by the hon. Lady. My Department did inform you, Mr Speaker, that we were unable to meet our initial deadline for responding to the Humble Address. That was mainly due to the surge of omicron at that time, and the way that my Department had to respond to ensure that we kept our citizens safe from that variant surge.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of the Randox kits that were recalled in the summer of 2020. It was on 15 July that year that NHS Test and Trace was notified  that some kits produced by Randox laboratories may not have met the required standard for coronavirus testing. As a precautionary measure, while this was investigated further, NHS Test and Trace paused the use of these Randox test kits with immediate effect. It was on 7 August that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed Randox to recall the Randox covid-19 home testing kits with a specific catalogue number. That decision was taken as a precautionary measure to prevent any further use of these Randox tests. The risk to safety was low, and test results from Randox kits were not affected. An independent assessment in June 2020 had placed Randox ahead of other laboratories, and Randox was meeting its delivery targets by September 2020. We were very precautionary in the measures we put in place to ensure that we were protecting everybody at that time.
I did note the point of order that the hon Lady made this week about the meeting on 9 April 2020, which she has raised again today. The note was taken during the meeting, and it was saved in a draft folder of the private secretary who took the note. When the Department received a freedom of information request for the minute of the meeting, the private secretary found the minute and shared it. For clarity, “note” and “minute” mean an official record of a meeting; the words mean the same from that point of view.
I reiterate that there are robust rules and processes in place that ensure that contracts are awarded in accordance with the public procurement regulations of 2015, and that Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts at all. That is a really important principle that the Government work on now, and have worked on probably for decades, and that principle will never be broken.

Alberto Costa: You will remember, Mr Speaker, as the right hon. Member for Chorley, and every Member in this House will remember, the enormous pressure we were all put under, barely two years ago, to try to find businesses and organisations that could quickly produce much-needed equipment and services to assist the people of our country during an unprecedented global pandemic. Can I put on record my appreciation of the enormous work that the Government did, and does the Minister agree with me that, had it not been for their work, we would not have been able to protect and save the lives of so many people in our country?

Maggie Throup: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s recognition, remembering where we were barely two years ago, of how we have moved on since then. We have put in place a test and trace programme that is renowned across Europe and across the world, and we have a world-leading vaccination programme as well as the amazing work done on therapeutics and antivirals. Coming together in the national effort has been vital, which is why I make no apologies for my Department’s looking at every opportunity to ensure that everybody could get tested who needed to be tested, that everybody could be jabbed who needed to be jabbed, and that the right therapeutics were in place to keep people safe.

Martyn Day: These secret communications reveal that Paterson corresponded directly with the then Health Secretary,  the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), in January 2020 about the services that Randox could provide. Then, without competition, Government contracts were issued to provide Randox with equipment if it struggled to get it, offering loans of equipment that were drafted on the same day as the emails were exchanged. Nice work if you can get it, eh? In the exchanges, Paterson repeatedly noted that he was a paid consultant to Randox, but the Government seemingly overlooked that fact for months until The Guardian revealed he had lobbied for Randox to get the contracts. Internally, Paterson then asked the Health Minister to kill the story once and for all. Can the Minister explain to me how that is not institutional corruption? Nobody trusts this Government. They are rule breakers and system cheaters. Does this whole case with Randox not just prove that the Government are interested only in helping their friends?

Maggie Throup: Once again, I make no apologies for the Department working to look at every opportunity to make sure that we had the right mechanisms in place to keep our country safe. As I said earlier, Randox was a recognised company in the diagnostic industry. The hon. Gentleman talks about how he perceives the Department working. The fact is that we have released all the documents. As I said earlier, the 11,000 documents were looked at to identify what was relevant. We have been very open in putting that information in the House of Commons Library and responding to the Humble Address.

Diana R. Johnson: The documents seem to show that there was a meeting with the former Member for North Shropshire and the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the Division Lobby. Will the Minister respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)? Did that meeting take place?

Maggie Throup: The evidence has been put in the Library and the information is there. I want to make it clear that my Department went through as much evidence as it could. As I said earlier, we were at the start of a pandemic; nobody had ever seen anything like it before. I make no apologies for making sure that we had everything in place to keep the country safe.

Chris Bryant: Oh dear; I almost do not know where to start. I have to be very careful, because the Standards Committee may well want to return to some of these issues and I will not stray into that territory. There is no rule that says that a Minister cannot be inappropriately lobbied, but there are rules saying that Members are not allowed to engage in paid advocacy. We may need to look at the rules to make sure there is a better way of dealing with this issue. I am not making any allegations about the Health Secretary or anybody else. I just wonder: when the Minister voted to protect Owen Paterson on 3 November, did she know about all of this or not?

Maggie Throup: I respect the hon. Gentleman and I look forward to the outcome of the work of his Committee. The code of conduct for MPs rightly remains a matter for Parliament. Today, we are talking about the Humble Address that my Department responded to, quite rightly.  There are lessons that can be learned. We are now looking at making sure we have mechanisms in place for the future. Standards are in place in the House and it is quite right that hon. Members meet those standards. I look forward to the outcome of your Committee’s work to make sure we have a rounded approach and that the situation with Mr Paterson does not happen again.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is Mr Bryant’s Committee, rather than mine.

Dan Carden: It really is quite remarkable: what the Minister has outlined in her response is what should have happened during the course of the pandemic and what has been proven not to have happened. Instead, the situation has been epitomised by Tory donors receiving billions of pounds in contracts, Ministers losing mobile phones when their Department and the law have tried to find out what has gone on, and decent companies with great experience in this field—I am thinking of Arco up in the north-east—being left with next to nothing. How can the Minister stand there and defend the indefensible?

Maggie Throup: As I said, we follow the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, and in procuring goods and services we are committed to fair and reasonable timetables and procedures, and encourage open competition wherever possible. However, we were in the middle of a pandemic.
Let me go through the process in a bit more detail. Awarding bodies use three main procurement routes in awarding contracts. First, there are direct awards without competition using emergency procurement rules, and I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that we were in an emergency situation. Secondly, there are direct awards using variations to existing contracts. The third route is awards from framework agreements—both direct awards and mini competitions—where suppliers have previously undergone a competitive process to be appointed to the framework. As we move out of the pandemic, we will obviously get back to business as usual and use these other mechanisms.

Alistair Carmichael: I am sure that I am not the only one in the House who is finding this utterly excruciating. The Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say in one breath that she makes no apology and in the next breath say that the Government are going to learn lessons. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asked her a simple and direct question about the meeting on 5 February. Did it happen—yes or no?

Maggie Throup: The evidence that we produced in response to the Humble Address has been laid in the Library.

Rachel Hopkins: The chief operating officer of the civil service requested the restoration of competitive tendering by March 2021. Will the Minister   confirm that that did not happen, tell us how many more contracts were issued without tender after that date, and explain why the emergency procurement rules are still in use almost a year after the deadline?

Maggie Throup: There is a lot of detail in that question. If I may, I will write to the hon. Lady with answers.

Lyn Brown: I am finding this really rather difficult, for the same reasons as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Has the Minister actually read what has been laid in the Library? If she has, will she enlighten us as to what it says about the meeting in the Lobby?

Maggie Throup: I reassure the House that I did read the documents before they were laid in the Library.

Nick Smith: Randox cashed in on covid contracts; its profits jumped from £12 million to £50 million, and as the money rolled in the company was re-registered in the Isle of Man. Does the Minister think that tax on UK covid contracts should be paid in the UK?

Maggie Throup: That is really for the Treasury to look at, but I come back again to the fact that Randox was an established company in diagnostic testing and that at the time we looked at which businesses could deliver our testing requirements. I am delighted that since then we have built up our own additional testing structure; in fact, later today I will be visiting the Rosalind Franklin Laboratory in Leamington Spa to see the amazing testing work that we have set up there under the UK Health Security Agency.

Clive Efford: There were four meetings between Health Ministers and Randox that were not registered. Does the Minister accept that, if she had taken part in unregistered meetings of that kind, she would have breached the ministerial code?

Maggie Throup: I register all my meetings, as I should do.

Anum Qaisar: This is agonising and frankly embarrassing. The Minister has been sent here to state repeatedly that we were in an emergency situation and a global pandemic, and she makes no apology. Does this scandal not just further prove that this Government are interested only in helping their friends to get richer?

Maggie Throup: I reiterate what I said earlier: we have robust rules and processes in place to ensure that contracts are awarded in accordance with the Public Procurement Regulations 2015, which I have also outlined in further detail. Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the new Leader of the House, Mark Spencer.

Thangam Debbonaire: Will the new Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

Mark Spencer: I would be delighted.
Monday 21 February—Remaining stages of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 22 February—Remaining stages of the Charities Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 23 February—Opposition day (13th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 24 February—Debate on a motion on the UK’s relationship with Russia and China, followed by general debate on the matter of the UK Government recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 25 February—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 28 February will include:
Monday 28 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet I will briefly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), my predecessor as Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council. During his time in post, he was instrumental in guiding parliamentary business through the pandemic. It may come as some surprise to colleagues that he was the leading advocate for the digital revolution in Parliament and a pioneer of the hybrid proceedings, and, to be fair, he ensured that the House and its Committees were able to sit throughout the pandemic.
My right hon. Friend also oversaw the Government’s delivery of the legislative programme over the past two and a half years, including ensuring that all necessary legislation was in place ahead of our departure from the European Union. He took his role extremely seriously; he was an ardent champion of Back Benchers, not least ensuring that all hon. Members who brought up issues at business questions had those raised with the relevant Secretaries of State. Those are huge strides that I will have to step into. I have huge respect for my predecessor and I hope I can fill his shoes. I have an enormous amount of respect for him and I think of him as a true friend.
My door will always be open to anyone who wants to speak to me. I especially hope that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) will come through that door, and that we can have a positive relationship in the best interests of the House and its Members. I can assure the House that I will look to carry on my predecessor’s commitment to ensuring that those who work on the estate are treated with dignity and respect. I look forward to working with the House of Commons  Commission, where I will look to build on recent work to ensure the efficient and effective running of the House for the sake of its Members and all who work here.

Thangam Debbonaire: I warmly welcome the new Leader of the House to his post. I thank him for the forthcoming business and look forward to working with him. Also in my line of sight is the new Government Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), and I welcome him to his place as well.
I thank the previous Leader of the House for our time working together. I note that he is taking up his new role as the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency. I was interested to find out more about that role, so I had a look on the ministerial webpage, only to find—certainly when I last looked, and I had been refreshing the screen all morning—that there seemed to be no responsibilities listed. I know from experience that that might suit him, so I wish him well.
This is Race Equality Week. Hate crime is rising in Britain. Race is now a factor in more than seven out of 10 hate crimes recorded in England. Can the Leader of the House explain what the Government are doing to tackle this? Religious hate crime is also rising, particularly against British Muslims, so can the right hon. Gentleman also demonstrate his personal commitment to tackling that by scheduling in Government time a debate on Islamophobia?
There are 14,000 cases of fraud every day and millions of cases of fraud every year. Each day, thousands of people are scammed out of hard-earned savings. Yet we have a Business Secretary who thinks fraud is not a real crime. Perhaps that is why the Chancellor is happy to write off £4.3 billion of fraudulent loans.
Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister who does not seem to understand his own Government’s record on tackling crime, claiming last week that they have been “cutting crime by 14%,” when that does not seem to be quite the case. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there is actually
“a 14% increase in total crime, driven by a 47% increase in fraud and computer misuse.”
This causes misery, as well as financial ruin, for many people. It seems to me that this indicates a Government that are both soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Prime Minister to come here and correct that record about crime statistics?
Families up and down the country are facing a cost of living crisis, with energy bills set to rise by more than £700 per year per household. Meanwhile, oil and gas producers are making over £700 profit per second. Instead of helping working families, this Government are choosing to load them up with debt. The Government’s forced loan—the so-called discount—means that households will actually end up forking out an extra £19 billion on their bills next year. Meanwhile, the Chancellor is pretending that he is giving us a discount. Given that the Government appear to be keen on “Buy now, pay later” schemes, would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this?
Labour’s plan would keep bills low enough, through a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas profits, and all households getting £200 off their bills, with an extra  £400 for those who need it most. Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government are not backing a windfall tax that would help fund a cut in VAT on energy bills and ease the burden on working people?
I asked the previous Leader of the House several times for the online harms Bill. We have had a series of updates, but no actual legislation. Last year the Prime Minister said the Bill would have completed all stages by Christmas, then it was just Second Reading, and then there was a vague commitment that it would happen at some point during the Session. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee has reported and we have had a debate, but nothing is forthcoming on the business. Can the new Leader of the House enlighten us about the location of the Bill?
Finally, as I have to say each week—unfortunately, nothing seems to change—this Government are out of touch, out of ideas and out of control. A decade of dither, their delay and their incompetence has left working people paying the price.

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about my predecessor. He has gone off to give us those Brexit dividends and find the benefits of Brexit. They are easy to find, to be honest, and I think he will be quite successful. Instead of criticising and being negative about Brexit, it is time the Labour party embraced Brexit, understood that the British people voted for Brexit and got on the bandwagon with us. Come and give us the Brexit dream, and let us go together, support the previous Leader of the House and move forward.
The hon. Lady mentioned race crime. I think everybody in the House will recognise that race crime is a terrible offence, and we should all do our part in condemning anyone who is involved in racial crimes. I wholly accept the point that she makes. I would be delighted to work together, in any way we can—we have a responsibility not only as Members of Parliament, but as citizens, to call out racial hatred whenever we see it in all its forms.
Turning to fraud, everybody will recognise what a terrible crime fraud is. As Members of Parliament, we can help. There are very evil people out there who are trying to steal people’s savings and attack our constituents, but we can help by highlighting some of those scams and by working to bring down not only fraud, but all crime. The Government’s record on crime is actually pretty good. If we look particularly at the statistics on violent crime and burglary, we see that the number of those crimes in our constituencies is coming down.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister coming to make a statement. I say gently to her that if we look at knife crime in the city of London, we see that when the Prime Minister was the Mayor of London, he tackled knife crime and it came down. Under the current Labour Mayor, those statistics have gone in the wrong direction. She should support the Government and support our ambitions to recruit more police officers, on which we are delivering, and together we can tackle crime.
Energy costs are clearly a very big issue for our constituents. The Government have done an awful lot to try to help with the pain of global energy costs. We have put £9.1 billion into the energy bill rebate scheme,  with a £200 discount on bills this autumn. The Government are taking a number of steps. I am not saying that there is not more that we can do, and I understand the squeeze on people, on hard-working families, but the best way out of poverty is through hard work, good jobs and good careers. That is what the Government are delivering. I say to the hon. Lady: get behind the Government and support us as we do that, because reducing the tax burden on the lowest-paid and helping out those on universal credit is what we are delivering.
Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned the online harms Bill. The Bill has been through pre-legislative scrutiny and that report has been received. I am sure that the House will be updated in the usual way when I announce business in future. At this moment in time, she will just have to chill her beans, but it is coming at some point.

Desmond Swayne: We are expecting a written ministerial statement today on the one piece of covid legislation that we do not yet know a date for revocation—namely, the provision of early abortion pills through the post without face-to-face consultation. Depending on what that statement says, will the Leader of the House consider making time available in the forthcoming business for an oral statement, so that those of us who are appalled by the practice can make the case for a swift return to the status quo ante?

Mark Spencer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Of course, the Government take that very seriously, and I understand the strength of feeling on these issues—[Interruption.] I accept that—I understand the strength of feeling on both sides of the argument and both sides of the House. The Department for Health and Social Care will look at that and I am sure that it will update the House on any decisions before they are made.

Pete Wishart: Well, look who we have now—I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member on his new role and note that he is now my sixth Leader of the House in my short tenure here as shadow Leader of the House on the Scottish National party Benches. I have learned a few things about being Leader of the House over the course of the years. Usually, the position is reserved for one of two categories: those on the way down or those who are difficult to place. I will leave him to decide which of these categories he falls into.
Although the right hon. Member could not possibly remain as Chief Whip after blackmailgate and after being the initiator of all the current difficulties by trying to lead recalcitrant and reluctant Back Benchers over the top to defend the indefensible by trying to save his pal, Owen Paterson, the fact that he has been made Leader of the House is almost unbelievable. It is like moving Dracula from Minister for blood supply to Minister for blood transfusions. But we wish him well. He must not just know where the bodies are buried; he is also brushing off the dirt on his grubby overalls.
It is also right that we pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). How we will all miss his affectatious patronisation. At least one good thing has come out of the oxymoron of his new job: one person has been gainfully employed by the Government’s disastrous Brexit.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Hopefully we might get on to the business. This is very funny, but come on.

Pete Wishart: Can we have a debate about the lorry park that is now the county of Kent? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is walking up and down the queue saying, “Hark! The sunlit uplands are just around the corner.”
There is one thing that the new Leader of the House could do to show that he is different in this job, and that is to resolve the case of my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). She has had to come down here just to vote, against her doctors’ advice, travelling 800 miles to put a pass against a card reader. It is madness. Not only is that bad for her, but it is bad for this House. It makes us look callous, it makes us look indifferent and it makes us look heartless. Can the Leader of the House show that he is not just the Mogg without the expensive classical education, and get this resolved for Members who are sick or recovering from illness?

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words about my predecessor, who did warn me that the hon. Gentleman was quite an angry man. Every week he turns up here in a very angry state, and I am concerned about that. When I meet him outside he seems to be very calm, but as he crosses the line he seems to have this huge anger. It is my personal mission to try to soothe him. I am the Sudocrem to his nappy rash. We will work together and I will calm him as we move forward.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned transport, and there will be an opportunity for him to question the Secretary of State for Transport in early March. He also mentioned the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). I met her yesterday—she came to my office—and I fully understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises, and her predicament. We await the Procedure Committee report on how we can assist and support colleagues who find themselves in those circumstances, but these are very delicate matters that do need consideration. My door is genuinely open to a conversation about how we can try to solve that for the benefit of the whole House. That is a conversation that I am happy to take forward with him in the future.

Shailesh Vara: May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Leader of the House? The Secretary of State for Transport recently announced that there would be a competition to find a new headquarters for Great British Railways. My constituency of North West Cambridgeshire comprises the southern half of the city of Peterborough, and I am in no doubt that it would be the ideal location for a new headquarters. Will my right hon. Friend kindly provide time in the House for a debate in which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) could put forward the case as to why the city of Peterborough should be the location of the new headquarters for Great British Railways?

Mark Spencer: My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, for Cambridgeshire and for Peterborough. I understand that the Great British Railways transition team is running the competition, and I wish him every success in his bid. I also note that the Government  are embarking on the biggest investment in our railway infrastructure, with £96 billion through the integrated rail plan.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

Ian Mearns: I welcome the Leader of the House to his place and to his role as Secretary of State for the application of Sudocrem.
He will have picked this up from his predecessor, but I remind him that the Backbench Business Committee already has a number of date-sensitive applications on the stocks, particularly for the first two weeks in March, with Welsh affairs and St David’s Day in the first week of March and International Women’s Day in the second week. We are anticipating a couple of days to debate departmental spending through estimates day debates, and applications for those debate slots must be made to the Backbench Business Committee by the deadline of 2.30 pm on Friday 25 February. We understand that supplementary estimates will be published in the last week of February.
I met the new president and the new general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers yesterday, and they wanted me to raise an issue in National Apprenticeship Week. I am sure the Leader of the House is aware that this is National Apprenticeship Week, which is a cause for celebration, but seafarer training policies in the maritime 2050 strategy and in mechanisms such as the tonnage tax are just not working to recruit and train UK ratings. Far too many shipowners bring in crew from overseas on low pay, sometimes with dreadful conditions of service, rather than training young people in our port towns and cities. Can we have a statement on what urgent action will be taken, including through the tonnage tax, to boost rating apprenticeships across the UK?

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his work as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. I encourage all colleagues to engage with the Committee, which is a great opportunity for them to raise any topic they like on the Floor of the House. His chairing of the Committee is exemplary. Of course, I will work with him to try to ensure those time-sensitive debates happen at a time of his choosing.
The Government have a very proud record on getting young people into apprenticeships, on which we can still do more. We need to reflect on how our young people get from school into careers. University is not the route for every young person, and an apprenticeship programme is a great opportunity for young people to get into the jobs market and to get a great career for themselves. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support.

Siobhan Baillie: Yesterday, in Oxfordshire, there was exciting news of a major breakthrough in our quest to develop nuclear fusion. The scientists at Culham have more than doubled the amount of fusion energy generated compared with previous tests, and Stroud and the south-west’s Severn Edge bid has been shortlisted for Berkeley and Oldbury to be the home of the first fusion energy prototype. I am biased, but we definitely have the best bid to deliver this source of low-carbon energy for the country. Will my right hon. Friend, with  his brand new powers, grant a debate in Government time to discuss the UK’s scientific developments, particularly in fusion energy?

Mark Spencer: I have to confess that my knowledge of nuclear fusion is limited. My only experience is from “Spider-Man 2”, where it all seemed to go a little wrong. It says here that nuclear fusion has the potential to be a world-changing energy source, and I have no reason to doubt that. I recognise my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for investment in her constituency, and I sincerely hope it works.

Carolyn Harris: I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. I wonder whether I can seek his guidance. It appears that charities get VAT exemptions when they buy defibrillators, but community groups do not. How best can I bring this to the attention of the Treasury Bench so that the anomaly can be rectified?

Mark Spencer: This is a very important issue. I recognise that a lot of people on both sides of the House have done a lot of work to highlight the need for defibrillators—I have been contacted by the Oliver King Foundation about a tragic case. This would be a worthy debate to have either in Westminster Hall or as an Adjournment debate, and I know it would be very popular.

Tom Randall: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. There is understandable public interest in the allegation of gatherings at Downing Street, but does he share my concern about how this subject has recently been taught at Welbeck Primary School in Nottingham? According to the school’s tweet about the lesson, children appear to have been taught allegations as fact—Mr Speaker, they also appear to have been taught that you have been biased—with no alternative view given. I have written to the Education Secretary to ask him to investigate whether the headteacher’s duty of impartiality under the Education Act 1996 has been breached in this case. In the meantime, might we have parliamentary time to debate the teaching of sensitive political subjects in schools so that teachers do not cross the line?

Mark Spencer: I know that you are quite capable of defending yourself, Mr Speaker, but any suggestion that you are biased should be robustly repudiated. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Education on our democratic processes and establishments is an important part of how young people learn about how our democracy works, but the subject has to be taught with sensitivity and without political bias. Any suggestion that there is political bias is unfortunate.

Wendy Chamberlain: The Leader of the House, whom I welcome to his place, will be aware that, this week, a Mauritian delegation set sail on a planned expedition to the Chagos islands with a number of expelled Chagossians on board. Members will be aware that, in 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that continued British occupation of the archipelago was illegal. Given the injustices that this population has suffered, does the Leader of the House  agree that there should be a debate in Government time on the Chagossians’ right to return, on progress in delivering the compensation package and on the future of that island chain?

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will have the opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions on 8 March. This is an important issue. Matters of immigration are very sensitive and I encourage the hon. Lady to either write to the Foreign Secretary or challenge her during FCDO questions.

Bob Neill: London accounts for 13% of the UK’s population and 22% of its gross domestic product. The issue of how London is governed is important to the whole country. We used to have debates in Government time on London and its governance. Can we restore that situation, so that we can examine why Conservative Bromley is debt-free, while Labour Croydon is bankrupt and required an £120 million bail-out; and why the Labour Mayor increased his press office’s budget by 33%, while shipping the London Assembly, which, in statute, has a duty to scrutinise him, 8 miles down the river, out of the centre, in order to marginalise it? Are those not matters that we should be able to debate in the House?

Mark Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question highlighting those issues. If I can facilitate such a debate, I will be delighted to, but of course there are other routes open to him: he might want a Westminster Hall debate; he can apply for an Adjournment debate; or he could even talk to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) about getting a Backbench Business debate.

Chris Bryant: I warmly congratulate the new Government Chief Whip. You may not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he and I have been friends for many years; he helped me run my campaign to be Speaker, which did not go very well, obviously. I hope that he has just as much success in his forthcoming campaigns. Of course, I also welcome the new Leader of the House. May I ask him about the statutory instrument on Russian sanctions that the Minister for Europe said would be laid before Parliament this afternoon? The whole House wants to help the Government introduce proper legislation, but we need proper scrutiny of it. As I understand it, the SI will go through the affirmative procedure, which means that it will not become law today, whatever the Foreign Secretary said two weeks ago; it needs the agreement of the House. We all want that to happen as soon as possible. Why did the Minister for Europe not announce today when that will happen? Why can it not happen on the Monday after next, when the House returns?

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words about the new Chief Whip. I, too, congratulate the Chief Whip on his appointment. He not only ran the hon. Gentleman’s campaign, but assisted the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) with her bid to become leader of the Conservative party, which was equally successful.
Turning to the statutory instrument on Russian sanctions that is being laid before Parliament, clearly this is a sensitive issue. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will  keep the House informed on how the measures will be implemented and on what they are. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to debate the instrument. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will at some point update the House and the hon. Gentleman will then have the opportunity to question her.

Lucy Allan: I warmly welcome the Leader of the House to his place. I can see that business questions on Thursday will continue to be the highlight of the week, and I thank him for that. I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Thursday regulars will miss him, even though they might not admit to it. Members from across the House have certainly told me—

Alberto Costa: The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)?

Lucy Allan: Yes, indeed. Members from across the House have told me how much they appreciate the diligence that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset showed in following up on their questions, and in highlighting their local campaigns. He was ably supported by the wonderful Leader of the House team, who we see in the Box.
Today is the last day for Members to participate in the consultation on proposed changes to standards on the conduct of MPs. Members have expressed concerns that their names could be made public and their comments used against them if they were to submit them online. Can the Leader of the House suggest a mechanism for how Members can participate in the consultation anonymously?

Mark Spencer: Let me put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for her contributions to business questions and supporting my predecessor. It is indeed the last day for contributions to the consultation on standards. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee on Standards, tells me from a sedentary position that those will be taken anonymously. I encourage all colleagues to participate in that. This is an important issue on which we need to have cross-party support on how we move forward. I look forward to the findings of the Committee and debating them in future.

Patricia Gibson: I am sure the Leader of the House will share the widespread condemnation of the animal cruelty displayed by the West Ham footballer Kurt Zouma, which took place in front of a child and was filmed by the footballer’s brother, who can be heard laughing as the abuse was taking place. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out his disappointment that West Ham fielded this player in the days following this incident, thereby squandering the opportunity to demonstrate that it has zero tolerance towards the abuse of defenceless animals by any of its players, no matter how good they may be at playing football?

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right to highlight this in the House of Commons. It was an appalling video; anybody who saw it could not help but be shocked by it. I understand that West Ham  United have fined the player two weeks’ wages and donated that money to animal charities. I would gently say to Mr Zouma himself that maybe he would like to match-fund that money and donate it either to Cats Protection or Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which is not far from the London Stadium, where he plays. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight this shocking case—well done.

Bob Blackman: For those who doubt that these questions are valuable, last week I raised a question on the failure of the Home Office to respond to my frequent correspondence in relation to immigration cases, and I am pleased to say that this week I have received a plethora of replies, and I thank my right hon. Friend’s predecessor for enabling that to happen. Indeed, tomorrow, an official is coming to my office to go through all the individual cases that are still outstanding.
Further to the question from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) about the abuse of and cruelty to domestic pets, my right hon. Friend—I congratulate him on his new job—is of course a farmer and looks after animals in an exemplary fashion. Can we have a statement on the Floor of the House from one of our Ministers on what measures can be taken to further protect domestic pets from this dreadful violence, which has obviously been perpetuated by a famous footballer but goes on every single day of the week throughout the years?

Mark Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the response of the Home Office. I would like to take full credit for that, but I will not. He is right to raise animal cruelty. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill is progressing through the House. This is something that the Government take very seriously. He mentions the fact that I am a farmer. We should be enormously proud, as UK agriculture, of the record of animal welfare within UK food production: we are world leading. As regards domestic pets, there will be lots of opportunities for that issue to be debated in future. Debates of that nature, should he apply for one, are always very popular.

John Cryer: I welcome the Leader of the House to his post, and to his first whingeing gits session, as business questions are affectionately known on both sides of the House.
May I support the plea from my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on racism and anti-racism? The figures for attacks on Jewish and Muslim communities in particular are rocketing for all sorts of reasons, and many of us, including me, represent both communities.

Mark Spencer: This is an important issue, and, as I have said, we all have a responsibility to try to ensure that we get our language right in the House. Hate crime of any nature should not be tolerated. I think it is always a good thing to debate it at any point and to highlight and condemn it, as well as working with our law enforcement officers who are out there on the frontline dealing with it on a daily basis.

Alberto Costa: The good people of Sherwood must be very proud today that their Member of Parliament has risen to become Leader of the House of Commons. I congratulate my right  hon. Friend on the position that he now holds. As one east midlands Member to another, may I ask him to confirm that he will facilitate, whenever possible, any debate in the House that seeks to highlight the great work that the Government do in helping to improve the lives of people and businesses in the east midlands?

Chris Bryant: Say no!

Mark Spencer: I think it unlikely that I am going to say no. My hon. Friend is a huge champion for Leicestershire and for the east midlands, and I shall be delighted to work with him to highlight the importance of the east midlands, to get more investment into the region, and to create more jobs and more opportunities for the next generation.

Florence Eshalomi: In his opening statement, the new Leader of the House mentioned the £9.1 billion energy bill rebate that the Government have announced to help constituents up and down the country. Yesterday I visited small business owners in Kennington Road, in my constituency, and they told me that their energy bills were going through the roof. Some are having to take measures such as not turning on their electricity during the day when there are no customers. These are hard-working people who want their businesses to succeed. At a time when we are seeing Shell and BP make profits of £14 billion and £9 billion respectively, will the Leader of the House please consider providing Government time for us to discuss how we can help our constituents who are suffering pain now, given that this rebate will make no difference to their pockets?

Mark Spencer: I want those businesses to succeed as well. Everyone on the Government side of the House wants to see them succeed. I want to see them create jobs for the hon. Lady’s constituents and for mine, and I want to see them make a good profit and pay their contributions in tax. The energy companies that the hon. Lady mentioned, on which she wants to see a windfall tax, are already paying a huge rate of tax to the Exchequer, and many of our constituents depend on the share values of those companies for their pensions. We have to get the balance right. We need to ensure that those companies are efficient enough to deliver the lowest level of energy costs that they can manage, but the Exchequer has provided mechanisms to support those businesses and our constituents. I think the Government are striking the right balance, and that the proposals of the hon. Lady’s party would take us in the wrong direction.

Robert Largan: High Peak is one of the safest places to live in the country, but for many years Fairfield Road in Buxton has been blighted by antisocial behaviour and drug-related crimes. I organised multi-agency meetings with the police, the fire brigade, the council, social services and the relevant housing associations so that we could develop a joined-up approach to tackling that crime and its underlying causes. I am pleased to report that since our meetings a series of arrests have been made, and the police have told me that there has been a 40% reduction in crime, but there is still a great deal more to do. With that in mind, may I ask  for a debate on safer neighbourhood policing to enable us to make the case for more resources for local policing and make High Peak even safer?

Mark Spencer: I am delighted to hear about the extra funding and the reduction in crime in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government are committed to bringing down crime rates. We have already recruited 11,000 new police officers, which is over halfway to delivering on the pledge that we made at the last general election. We are giving officers more of the powers that they need to police our streets. My hon. Friend is a huge champion for his constituency, and I am delighted to hear that he is making good progress in fighting crime.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I encourage colleagues to ask fairly short questions.

Barry Sheerman: I welcome the new Leader of the House. Those of us who are regulars on a Thursday would prefer stimulation rather than soothing, and especially the stimulation of a Leader of the House who believes not in a presidential system run from No. 10 but a parliamentary democracy run here in this place.
On a lighter note, I am wearing my Valentine’s tie with hearts on it because it is Valentine’s day on Monday and we encourage everyone, in this House and outside, to send flowers to Nazanin on Monday. We cannot send them to her directly but they should be sent to the Iranian embassy. Let us build an enormous show of love for Nazanin and sympathy for her predicament on Monday. I hope that the new Leader of the House will join me in that.

Mark Spencer: I would be delighted to. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for the love he is demonstrating across the Chamber. I will assist him and the House in drawing attention to the fact that the Iranian state is still holding on to Nazanin. It is an outrage, and the sooner we can get her home, the better.

Martin Vickers: My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the services provided by East Midlands Railway—although in the case of EMR’s Cleethorpes to Barton service, it is the lack of service that is causing my constituents concerns. Will he arrange a debate about reliability and the responsibility of the rail operating companies to their passengers?

Mark Spencer: I praise my hon. Friend for his role as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on rail. I am familiar with East Midlands Railway. He is a huge champion for the improvement of services to Cleethorpes, and I wish him well in that pursuit. He can always apply for an Adjournment debate to continue to highlight the challenges his constituents face.

Wera Hobhouse: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role. I look forward to his attempts to lower the temperature in these sessions and am waiting for the moment when he tells me to “Calm down, dear”—I assure him that I will probably do the opposite.
I welcome yesterday’s announcement that cyber-flashing will become a specific offence in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I congratulate Bumble and the End Violence Against Women Coalition on that victory. Will the  Leader of the House please ensure that we see a timeline, via a statement in the House, for how the Government are going to take the change forward?

Mark Spencer: I think the hon. Lady may have confused me with Michael Winner—I do not think I have ever used those words.
The hon. Lady raises the important issue of violence against women and girls, which the Government take extremely seriously. I am sure the Home Office will update her on the progress made and that she will hold the Home Office to account as we move forward.

Felicity Buchan: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role.
The Mayor of London is failing my constituents in Kensington: he is looking to sell the Notting Hill police station to the highest bidder, meaning there will not be a police presence in the north of my borough after December 2022. My local council is putting together a bid to retain the site as an asset of community value. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Mayor of London should sell the site to my local council so that it is retained in the community rather than turned into luxury flats that will be bought by foreigners and probably never lived in?

Mark Spencer: The Mayor of London is the capital’s police and crime commissioner and is ultimately responsible for decisions of that kind. I note that his record on policing, and particularly on the scourge of knife crime, does not match that of his predecessor. My hon. Friend is diligent in her frequent questioning of the inadequacies of the Mayor of London and is a great champion of her constituents. I hope he listens to her pleas.

Clive Efford: The UK Statistics Authority has written to the Government because the Prime Minister used the wrong figures when he talked about crime being down by 14% when it is in fact up by 14%. The Government have similarly been written to about the use of unemployment statistics that neglect to include people who are self-employed, the number of whom has dropped by 700,000 to 800,000, so there are in fact fewer people in employment, contrary to what the Government say. Will the Leader of the House undertake to investigate all the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who have misinformed the House, albeit inadvertently, on those statistics and ensure that they come back and put the record straight, as they are required to do?

Mark Spencer: I think the hon. Gentleman rescued himself at the end by putting in the word “inadvertently”, because I know he would not want to suggest that anybody would come to the House and deliberately mislead anyone. I can cheer him up by telling him that the work on crime that the Government are delivering is making great progress. We are working on drugs strategies, we are shutting down county lines, we are investing £200 million in the youth endowment fund, we are lifting the number of police officers throughout the United Kingdom and we are working very hard to bring down violent crime—and succeeding. It is time for him to be more positive about crime reduction, get behind the Government, and support our police officers by recognising their hard work.

Richard Fuller: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent start in his new role. This weekend, CPRE Bedfordshire is arranging a series of walks in conjunction with local parishes across the Bedfordshire countryside to highlight the pressure that excessive development is placing on our natural environment. What progress are the Government making with our infrastructure-first initiatives and our planning targets? Could we have a statement from the Minister responsible for those topics?

Mark Spencer: My hon. Friend is a keen campaigner on the issue of development on the green belt. A new Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who is a great man and the former Deputy Chief Whip, was recently appointed. I encourage my hon. Friend to get in contact with him to ensure that he understands the priorities. Many safeguards have been put in place in terms of planning. I wish him well, as many hon. Members have the same concerns.

Catherine West: Will the new Leader of the House provide an urgent statement on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s performance? The Transport Committee has criticised it twice in recent months. My constituent, who is a taxi driver, is desperate because his livelihood depends on his licence being returned to him. Another constituent needs to travel abroad but it has had her passport for three months. Can he work some magic to resolve those issues?

Mark Spencer: I know that issue is recognised in the Department for Transport. The hon. Lady will understand that, coming out of a global pandemic, there have been challenges in several Government Departments, where people have been working from home, to process all that information as quickly as it should be delivered. She is right to highlight that and I am sure that she will have an opportunity at Transport questions to question the Secretary of State for Transport on that matter.

Jerome Mayhew: The Government agree that an offshore transmission network is the best way to connect offshore wind to the national grid, but under current plans, an OTN will not be in place until after 2030, when we have had 40 GW from offshore wind by 2030 set out under the green industrial revolution. National Grid ESO estimates that that will cost consumers an extra £6 billion. Is there time for a debate on the need to accelerate the development and installation of the OTN so that it is ready for 2030 and the 40 GW connection, not after it?

Mark Spencer: I think there are Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions in the week we return from half-term, and I know that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to question our colleagues in BEIS then. The Government are managing the transition from a carbon-driven energy production system to new tech. I know that he is a keen advocate of that, and I am sure that he will hold us to account as we make that transition.

Patrick Grady: FDR created the Executive Office of the President in response to the great depression and to drive through the new deal. The  Office of the Prime Minister has been created in response to partygate and to get through a leadership crisis. Can we have a debate on the significant constitutional change—the power grab—that is being perpetrated by Downing Street?

Mark Spencer: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous. The Prime Minister wants to bring efficiency to Downing Street, which will benefit my constituents and his. We need a system in Government that delivers for the House of Commons so that hon. Members in the Chamber can hold the Government to account as well as bringing the changes that our constituents desperately need to see.

Richard Graham: I welcome the new Leader of the House. Could he apply some of his famed Sudocrem to those of us on both sides of the House who would like to see the Vagrancy Act 1824 repealed by allowing us to vote for the amendment from Lord Best and Lord Young—the latter is a distinguished former Chief Whip—in due course?
Although this is not the most important issue about Russia on the table, will the Leader of the House encourage Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to help Gloucester City Council, which has been badly hacked, reportedly by those in Russia?

Mark Spencer: My hon. Friend’s question highlights the importance of the security services in dealing with hacks in which local authorities have been subject to ransom software. We will continue to do anything we can as a Government to support local authorities or Government agencies to avoid that. On the Vagrancy Act, I am aware of the amendment currently in the House of Lords, which the Government are looking at closely. As soon as we have made a decision on that, I am sure that the House will be updated.

Rosie Winterton: It should really be one question.

Diana R. Johnson: I welcome the Leader of the House to his new role. Given that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and, I think, the majority of the British public support the continuation of telemedicine—the Government also had a consultation on it that ended in February 2021—is it not time for an urgent statement from the Department of Health and Social Care about the future for telemedicine? Last week, The Daily Telegraph reported that Ministers had said that they would extend it, but that was not brought to the House of Commons first. It is however the right decision, because it is the healthcare that women in 2022 need and the Abortion Act 1967, which is more than 50 years old, is no longer fit for purpose.

Mark Spencer: I recognise the right hon. Lady’s work and how passionately she has campaigned in this area. It is a sensitive issue on which I fear to tread at this moment in time. We have Health and Social Care questions on 1 March, which will give her an opportunity  to ask questions, but I expect that any changes that she referenced will be debated in the House and that she will have an opportunity to question Ministers on them.

Simon Fell: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place; he is doing an excellent job.
One hundred and seventy-five years ago, Barrow-in-Furness comprised little more than a few sheep farms, but the discovery of iron ore opened up Barrow to the world and Henry Schneider’s railway showed its potential. It is because of the iron and steel of the railways that we now deliver the national deterrent. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no better place for the home of Great British Railways than Barrow-in-Furness? Will he give time for a debate so that colleagues can discuss the issue further?

Mark Spencer: As I said earlier, the Great British Railways transition team is running a competition, and I wish my hon. Friend every success as I do my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), who also hopes to bid. I remind the House that the Government have a plan to deliver a wide range of change on our railways. I congratulate him on being a huge campaigner and great advocate for Barrow—he is a true champion for the town—and wish him well.

Nick Smith: The Brexit dividend was supposed to reduce paperwork and red tape, so how come next week 50 questionnaires will be sent to Downing Street?

Mark Spencer: Of course, we have a new Minister in place who will deliver the Brexit dividend. There are huge opportunities coming forward for the United Kingdom. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get behind Brexit and to celebrate all that is Brexit. In the words of the movie “Frozen”—I do not know whether he has seen it—he should “let it go”. We have got to move forward and celebrate Brexit.

Judith Cummins: I also welcome the Leader of the House to his place. As I am sure the whole House knows, this is a momentous year for rugby league. We are starting the season today with rugby league being shown on two TV stations, and then the rugby league world cup will be hosted by England later this year. Does the Leader of the House agree that this momentous year should be celebrated in this House, starting with a debate in Government time on the power of sport and the huge contribution that rugby league in particular makes to our communities and to society as a whole?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I warmly welcome her question. It is important in answering that I mention Warrington Wolves, or Mr Speaker will be upset. I know that he is a huge fan of rugby league, and we should celebrate all that those small clubs do, with thousands and thousands of volunteers and parents turning out at weekends, supporting their kids playing football, rugby league and rugby union and many other sports. It is good for the mental health of their kids and their fitness, and it is good for families to have something to do at weekends that draws them together and keeps them as a unit.

Martyn Day: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role and thank his predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), for his assistance in pursuing the Business Secretary after I raised in November the issue of best available techniques, which set the conditions for environmental permits for key industries. Unfortunately, we are no further forward. The Government response to the April 2021 consultation has not yet been published, and we are only weeks away from the arrangements taking effect. There also seems to be uncertainty as to which Department is responsible. Can we therefore have a statement from the appropriate Minister, and will the Leader of the House allow time for Members to debate this issue?

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for recognising the efforts of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. First, let us try to identify the Department that is responsible. I will try to assist him in doing that, and then we can together pursue that Department to get the answers that he desires.

Sarah Owen: Luton North finds strength in its diversity; it really is one town of many voices. My constituents are concerned by the rising incidence of Islamophobia, backed up by worrying new findings from the University of Birmingham that Britons are three times more likely to discriminate against Muslims than any other faith group. Their fears are all compounded by reports of Islamophobia at the heart of this Government. The shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), did not get a straight answer, so I will try again. Will people’s legitimate concerns be addressed in Government time, yes or no?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Lady is right to highlight all forms of hate crime and racial discrimination, and I am committed to assisting her in any way I can to try to diminish, reduce or eradicate racial hatred and racial crime. It is an appalling crime and it should be condemned at all levels. If I can assist her in any way in doing that, I would be delighted to do so.

Richard Burgon: The now Leader of the House is more than familiar with the details of the Owen Paterson scandal that did so much damage to our politics, given his role in those events. The rot needs to be cut out. Given that, will the Leader of the House give time to debate my Bill to ban second jobs for MPs—a Bill that the Government are repeatedly blocking from progressing?

Mark Spencer: I should declare an interest, as I have a second job. As well as being the Member of Parliament for Sherwood, I am also the Leader of the House. I do not know whether he wants to ban me from having my second role, but that would be challenging. The House of Commons benefits from a wide range of experience, backgrounds and former careers and, to a certain extent, colleagues should be encouraged to be out there in the real world experiencing other forms of employment. I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous. If I am being honest with him, it would be pretty difficult for me as a farmer to extract myself from that. I live in the middle of that farm. I do not know how I would extract myself from that business if I was no  longer allowed to have a second job. I am not prepared to divorce my wife or to move house. I do not know quite how I would deliver on the route he wants to go.

Charlotte Nichols: The bus industry is hearing that the Government are contemplating the removal of current covid subsidies for bus companies from April or shortly afterwards. That would be extremely detrimental to bus services in Warrington, potentially requiring full route withdrawals and a stiff fares rise. Both would be extremely unpopular and could leave parts of our town cut off from public transport. Will the Leader of the House therefore please arrange for a statement in Government time on bus funding, so that this issue can be resolved and continued funding secured as we build back public transport after the pandemic?

Mark Spencer: I think the Department for Transport just announced £29 million extra to support buses, but the hon. Lady must recognise that as we move out of covid we need to move back to original funding levels in those areas. The good news is that we are coming out of covid. We will be the first country to get rid of all covid measures. That is thanks to the Prime Minister who, at the very early stages, pushed the vaccine programme and delivered the booster programme. I warmly welcome our move away from covid and back to a normal way of working.

Anum Qaisar: I welcome the Leader of the House to his new position. Will he make time, on the Floor of the House, for a debate on Islamophobia? I have spoken previously on the Floor of the House about my experiences of Islamophobia and racism. Does he agree that an individual’s religion, or indeed no religion, should never be a barrier to them in the workplace?

Mark Spencer: I wholly agree with the hon. Lady that someone’s religion, sexuality, sex or age should not be a barrier to their career. She is one of a number of Members this morning who has asked for a debate of that nature. It is clearly very popular. I encourage her to link up with the other colleagues who have asked for that debate and to petition the Backbench Business Committee. I am sure the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who Chairs the Committee, will listen to those pleas.

Rachael Maskell: Next week is Love Unions Week. May I put on record the incredible work that our trade unions do every day, supporting workers through the very challenging twists and turns of the workplace, but also over the last two years supporting workers through the pandemic, and supporting the growth of the economy and advancing workers’ rights? May we have a debate in Government time to talk about the value of trade unions, and encourage people to join their trade union and make a difference to the world of work?

Mark Spencer: I should declare my interest as a member of the National Farmers Union. Unions are a force for good in many circumstances. A debate on the success of unions is something the hon. Lady clearly believes in passionately. I encourage her to apply for an Adjournment debate, so she can put on the record her desire to celebrate all that is good about UK unions.

Peter Grant: I congratulate the Leader of the House on being able to hold down three jobs. Several of my constituents do not have a job. They lost their job or had a job offer withdrawn because it took the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency six months or more to renew their driving licence. I firmly support the earlier request by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for a debate in Government time to look into the performance of the DVLA, in particular the gross discrimination against people who have to declare a medical condition. That is what is causing the delays. That is what forces people to use an outdated manual system, instead of the online system. Will the Leader of the House advise his colleagues in other Departments that that discrimination is not only indefensible; it is almost certainly unlawful and the Government could be facing a massive compensation bill if they do not get their act together pronto?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the cases he talks about. There will be an opportunity for him to question Transport Ministers in the near future. I encourage him to use the methods available to him to pursue this issue in the House with an Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate.

Rachel Hopkins: Tomorrow is UN International Day of Woman and Girls in Science, which pushes for full and equal access and participation for women and girls in science, given the significant gender gap that persists, particularly in accessing participation in higher education. Could we have a debate in Government time on the important role that BTECs and other applied general qualifications, such as biomedical science, play in allowing women and girls to access higher education, including on the impact that defunding BTECs will have on that participation?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Member is right to highlight that issue. It is important to get young girls into science, technology, maths and engineering topics. The Government have made great progress in that direction, and the Secretary of State for Education and his Department would celebrate and love the opportunity to set out their record. If the hon. Member were to apply for an Adjournment debate, she would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to tell her about the great work that the Government are doing.

Jim Shannon: On behalf of myself and my party, I welcome the Leader of the House to his new job, fresh from his job as Chief Whip. I also wish the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), well in his new role.
Two weeks ago, the House of Lords highlighted that the NHS sourced materials made by the forced labour of Christians, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Falun Gong practitioners in Xinjiang, China. Will the Leader of the House provide a statement on the steps that Her Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure that goods procured for the NHS are free from the forced labour of prisoners of conscience in that region?

Mark Spencer: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions are on 8 March. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a long-term campaigner for  the rights of the oppressed in foreign countries and the rights of Christians around the world. It is important that he highlights those challenges. The matter is worthy of debate, and I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate so that all the issues can be thrashed out.

Margaret Ferrier: I welcome the Leader of the House to his place.
On Sunday morning, I will be joining locals at Hamilton Accies football club for The Big Step challenge, which is a campaign to end all gambling advertising and sponsorship in football. The campaign is part of Gambling with Lives—a charity set up by families bereaved by gambling-related suicide. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on the highly anticipated White Paper on the Gambling Act 2005, and on how those with lived experience can inform the legislative outcomes?

Mark Spencer: The issue is worthy of debate. Many people participate in gambling, and it does them no harm—it is something that they enjoy—but clearly there are people who become addicted. Putting in place safeguards to protect those people and ensure that they are safe from predatory activity is worthy of debate. I wish the hon. Member well in her campaign.

Rosie Winterton: I add my congratulations to the Leader of the House on his new role. I know that it was on the tip of his tongue to wish Doncaster good luck in its bid to be the home of Great British Railways; I am sure that it was just the time constraint that prevented him from doing so. Welcome, Leader of the House.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope this is helpful, as it follows on from the earlier questions about the Standards Committee’s current code of conduct review. The consultation ends today, and I know that the Government are close to sending in their own submission. Neither I, nor the Committee, would want any Member of the House to be treated any differently from the public in their submission. Members of the public can make a submission to the consultation online and simply click the box that says, “I would like to remain anonymous”, and that facility is also available to Members.
Alternatively, Members can email me or the Clerk of the Committee. It is helpful for us to know that a submission has come from a Member, but if they wanted to indicate that they would like to remain anonymous, we would undertake to maintain that anonymity when we publish all the responses to the consultation. We really do want to hear everybody’s views as openly as possible. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you can answer that point of order, which was not really a point of order at all.

Rosie Winterton: I was just about to say that I felt that it was more a public service broadcast than a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has obviously passed on the information very effectively.

Backbench Business

UK-Taiwan Friendship and Co-operation

Alicia Kearns: I beg to move,
That this House notes the importance of the UK’s relationship with Taiwan; calls on the Government to continue to work towards the strengthening of the UK-Taiwan trade relationship and deepening of security cooperation; and further calls on the Government to support Taiwan’s recognition in the international community.
An island like our own, Taiwan is a democracy where free markets and the rule of law are valued and upheld. Reverence of liberty and respect for fair governance are treasured by the Taiwanese, just as they are in countries across the free world. Yet Taiwan is also unique. It has a beautiful culture born out of the many peoples and countries that have touched the island. Within this diversity, the Taiwanese show elements of a common culture with their Chinese cousins. They speak Mandarin, and they gather every year to celebrate the same traditions as those on the Chinese mainland. For example, just this month, millions of Taiwanese celebrated the beginning of the lunar new year, and I am sure everyone will join me in wishing them well in the year of the tiger.
However, Taiwan has always been distinct. Following the fall of the Ming dynasty in 1644, Taiwan was ruled separately from the emergent Ching dynasty in Beijing. The Kangxi Emperor, who ruled China for longer than any other, said of the island:
“We gain nothing by possessing it, and it would be no loss if we did not acquire it.”

Desmond Swayne: To what extent does my hon. Friend believe that, following our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Government of China are watching very closely our resolve in the face of threats to Ukraine, as they assess what they might do with regard to their ambitions in the South China sea?

Alicia Kearns: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment, and he is absolutely right that autocratic Governments across the world are now questioning our resolve and questioning our ability to go in and defend our neighbours, particularly to uphold the values of democracy. I will elucidate that point more if he gives me a little time.
While the pomposity of that comment and attitude about Taiwan does not reflect the immense value of this nation, it does highlight the novelty of the Chinese claims to the island. China did not always claim the right to govern Taiwan, and that is important in understanding the current tensions as we look at recent developments.
Taiwan has not always been the democracy we see today. The years after the second world war saw the emergence of a one-party nationalist state, with widespread political repression. At the beginning of the 1980s, however, Taiwan pursued democratic reform. Building on the rapid economic growth post war, the island became a multi-party, rules-based democracy. This transformation was known as the Taiwan miracle. The Economist global democracy index now shows just  how far Taiwan come. I doubt many Members would know that Taiwan is ranked as the 11th most democratic country on earth and the No. 1 most democratic country in Asia, according to The Economist, which is a quite outstanding achievement.
Taiwan is therefore the living, breathing truth that societies rooted in Chinese culture are capable of developing into free market, democratic and rules-respecting members of the international community. It is this truth that explains why the Chinese Communist party fears Taiwan so greatly, because as long as Taiwan exists, the world will know that Government need not be defined by control, repression and even genocide, as we have seen under the Chinese Communist party. When Xi Jinping claims that Taiwan has always been part of China, he is using a false narrative to pursue his political agenda.

Christine Jardine: Does the hon. Member agree with me that the problem we have at the moment is that there seems to be an absence of strategy from the Government towards China and its relationship with Taiwan? Does she feel that we do need something urgently to fill that gap or, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, China will be looking very closely at our reactions and perhaps its own actions will be influenced by that lack of strategy?

Alicia Kearns: I thank the hon. Lady, and I very much agree that we need a cross-Government strategy on China. However, I think she will probably hear from the Minister later some relief on that subject, because I believe that a cross-Government strategy is currently being developed. It looks as though the officials in the Box are relieved that I am saying so, but we will wait to hear about that later.

Chris Bryant: Some people have often said that China has adopted a patient attitude to Taiwan and thinks that eventually it will somehow fall into China’s lap. Is it not important that we have a cross-party, cross-House and whole-nation approach to this in the UK, and do we not have just as deep a well of patience as China?

Alicia Kearns: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. China believes it is in the ascendancy and needs simply to wait it out until the UK and the US lose their ability to maintain an international rules-based order, and then it can occupy Taiwan. He puts it very well when he says that we too are watching and we too will wait, and we will stand by our allies. He is absolutely right that we need a cross-party approach, and I believe that under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) we see exactly that on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The current tensions in Taiwan must be seen for what they are: the direct result of the emergence of democracy and the Chinese Communist party’s own insecurity about a modern, successful and democratic Chinese society. When people ask why we should care about an island on the other side of the globe, the answer is simple. Taiwan represents the best of democracy, and the United Kingdom must always take the side of democracy and our friends who are trying to uphold its values.
Over the past few years, we in this House have watched with dismay as the Chinese Communist party has stripped away the freedoms and liberties of our friends in Hong Kong. The implementation of the national security law has transformed a vibrant and open society into a repressive, Orwellian nightmare, where a teenager faces prison for voicing slightly critical views on social media. While we all mourn the loss of those freedoms, I urge hon. Members not to fall into a state of resignation; our friends in Taiwan need more than that.
Therefore, I will discuss three areas that bind the interests of the United Kingdom to Taiwan: further economic co-operation, international recognition, and security and regional stability. The UK and Taiwan already enjoy a fruitful trading relationship: £7.2 billion of goods and services were exchanged in 2020 alone. Taiwan, as we all know, is the leading producer of semiconductor chips, the micro-engines of our modern world. From mobile phones to the fighter planes that make up the Royal Air Force, the importance of those chips cannot be overstated, but there has been a shortage in recent years, leading both the European Union and USA to implement strategies to maintain their access. We must do the same.
Sensing an opportunity, the Chinese Communist party is already moving to try to dominate this market, although I suspect it will not be able to because of the high-quality workmanship needed to create the chips. Only last year, China purchased the UK’s largest producer of semiconductor chips, Newport Wafer Fab. I opposed the takeover, as did the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I urge the Government to continue to do more to protect industries of special national interest. We cannot be selling them off. We must seek to produce, to protect our own production capabilities and to foster trading relationships with democracies that will protect supply chains.
A trade deal with Taiwan would not only ensure access to semiconductor chips, but help the UK to achieve our net zero targets without compromising on our morals. In my Rutland and Melton constituency there is a 2,175-acre solar plant proposed on good agricultural land, which is being developed by a de facto Chinese company with supply chains reaching into Xinjiang, the site of the Chinese Communist party’s genocide. I will not see Rutland’s soil tainted by mass human rights atrocities. I urge the Government to pursue a bilateral trade deal, because we know Taiwan produces quality solar panels free of Uyghur blood labour.
Taiwan is a country committed to net zero by 2050, producing high-quality green technology, and it shares our democratic morals. What better partner for a trade deal? Let us strike one and begin to develop the alternative supply chains we need to free Taiwan and to a lesser extent ourselves from economic reliance on the Chinese mainland. Let us focus on high-quality technologies and renewables. There is opportunity for us and for them.
The UK is also in the process of joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We have recognised the shift in global wealth and power towards the Indo-Pacific, and global Britain is rightly stepping up to that. As we pivot towards Asia, however, we must have someone to lean on. Taiwan could play an important role there.
We are all aware of the limitations placed on Taiwan globally: despite having the 21st largest economy and a population of 24 million, it is still barred from meaningful participation in much of the international order. Although tens of millions of passengers pass through its airports, Taiwan has not been represented at the International Civil Aviation Organization since 2014. That is illogical, and the UK must support its readmittance to that body.

Thomas Tugendhat: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for Taiwan’s place in the international community and its role in international bodies. Does she agree that this is not just about Taiwan, but about us as well? What we have seen from the absence of Taiwan’s voice on the World Health Organisation is a worse performance against covid, the Wuhan virus that emerged under Chinese tutelage. Does she agree that we are seeing a damaged response and a worsened ability of the British people to protect themselves because China has decided, for its own selfish reasons, to bully and silence Taiwan?

Alicia Kearns: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is no question but that the Taiwanese response to covid was transparent. It was one of friendship, education and reaching out, yet the international community somehow closed their doors to it. Not only is Taiwan barred from the World Health Organisation and World Health Assembly, but it was expelled from its observer position. That is not acceptable for a country that had impressive contact tracing and border controls, and a rejection of the Orwellian restrictions that other countries put in place.

Stephen Kinnock: The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. As she rightly pointed out, Taiwan is a beacon not only of liberal democracy but of scientific co-operation, and it has shown huge expertise in the way it dealt with the covid-19 pandemic. She has rightly called for Taiwan to be readmitted with observer status to the WHO. What specific and tangible steps does she think the British Government should be taking to lobby the international community to make that happen? When does she think we should start seeing more tangible action from the British Government in that context?

Alicia Kearns: We know there are partners across the world who wish to support us in upholding the rights and opportunities of our democratic partners. We should be forming constellations of alliances in every multilateral organisation and zone, where we lobby and work together, whether that is ensuring that we get the right president of Interpol, or ensuring that we have friends such as the Taiwanese at the table or with observer status. Those are things that the UK can lead on, because no nation in the world is better at convening other nations than the UK. If we put our mind to it, we can achieve it.
We must be careful to avoid an unnecessary clash with China in which Taiwan is caught in the middle and becomes collateral damage. The current settlement has maintained peace for 40 years, and we should never underestimate the importance and value of peace. We must therefore be careful in the framing of our relationship and duties to Taiwan. The emergence of full-blown US-China or UK-China strategic rivalry risks increasing Taiwan’s place in political rhetoric between our nations, or it becoming a lightning rod for international agitation  and a signal, or a de facto signal, of how strongly a country is or is not standing up to the Chinese Communist party. While that might be easy, or even attractive, to fall into, our Taiwanese friends deserve more meaningful engagement from all of us in this place; it should not be because Taiwan is a useful pawn in our wider competition or debates. I urge the Minister to ensure that we pursue meaningful engagement with Taiwan and that we act tactfully. When I call for Taiwan to have greater international recognition, it is on account of its democracy, its expertise and its status as a free-market friend; not as a tool in a wider struggle.
There are things we can learn from Taiwan, and we must, as we establish this new constellation of alliances around the world. We must also be alert to the risk of framing Taiwan as the smaller cousin of a great beast. It deserves better than that. The Taiwanese are not an embattled people withstanding increasing pressure from the authoritarian communist mainland, which sits waiting to launch an invasion. Taiwan is a strong, thriving economy and society, and a friend, and we must support it in the measured and diplomatic manner that it deserves.
Our first step would be a round of ministerial visits, and I hope the Minister can arrange reciprocal visits, particularly with a Minister at Cabinet level who could represent all of Government, given that we recognise the restrictions on the engagement of particular Departments. I also call for formal recognition to be given to the Taipei representative office, and for meaningful political dialogue. Indeed, His Excellency—I call him that on purpose—the ambassador of Taiwan is observing this debate today; he joins us in the Chamber, and I am sure we all wish to extend our welcome to him. What a gesture it would be if we were to consider granting his office, which serves Taiwan with great distinction, legal diplomatic status.
I have already spoken about the strength of Taiwan’s democracy, the unique culture of its people, and the immense contribution it can and wants to make internationally. But all that is at risk. The 40 years of peace preserved under the principle that Taiwan is a part of China, which we recognise but do not necessarily believe in fully, is being tested. Xi Jinping has committed himself to the political reunification, or “the great rejuvenation” as he calls it, of Taiwan and China, including through the use of force. Already in 2022, in just 27 days, Taiwan has suffered over 148 threatening flights by Chinese aircraft into the air defence identification zone, threatening the Taiwanese air force through a concerted campaign to erode its confidence, as well as grievous aggravations in the Taiwan strait.
The UK is committed to the international rules-based order and I welcome that the Royal Navy’s flagship, the Queen Elizabeth, went to the Taiwan strait last year. I praise the Government for getting Taiwan on the agenda of the recent G7 meeting under our presidency. This is the sort of forward-thinking engagement that we need, but we must do more.
We cannot sit back and wait for any tragedies, such as those in Hong Kong, to occur again. We must act, and we must act now. I ask the Minister to work with our allies around the world, to engage with those nations that respect freedom and have the same concerns that we do, to set in place deterrents and diplomacy to protect our Taiwanese friends, and to ensure we are  monitoring, perhaps in the conflict zone that was recently established, the increasing grey-zone hostilities against Taiwan, so that we can measure the incremental and subtle escalations that are taking place.
We also need to look at resilience building with our Taiwanese friends, whether helping them counter disinformation campaigns, developing supply chain resilience or ensuring they can retain access to markets worldwide, which will surely be one the first places that China will seek to hurt them. We have all been impressed by the swift actions of this Government in Ukraine, but now we must show that we are truly a global Britain and will act worldwide.

Andrew Rosindell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is long overdue. On that point, the Foreign Secretary has been in Russia this week, showing steely determination to stand up to Russia about the way it is behaving with Ukraine. Do we need the same kind of steely determination shown towards Beijing over its attitude towards Taiwan and Hong Kong, and its general behaviour in that part of the world?

Alicia Kearns: My hon. Friend has long been an advocate and friend of the Taiwanese people. The issue is that for too long autocratic countries around the world have seen no cost when they escalate, escalate and escalate. Whether is it Dodik in Bosnia, Putin in Ukraine and around our near neighbourhood, or China in Hong Kong, and whether domestically or in the countries around them, I fear greatly that we fail to bring costs to bear that matter, at our own peril.
Let us look at the situation in Ukraine. Putin has achieved much in the past few weeks. We have given him the world status that he has been craving, with America, France and England all going to Moscow to be called equal to him on the world stage. We have given tacit agreement to him that those borders that he has already occupied are now his to keep. “Just don’t go any further,” we say. That is not enough. That is not a cost. Putin has won greatly in the past few weeks.
While we all recognise the threats facing democracy today, how we in this place respond matters, because it will define the future of the United Kingdom. Around the world, Parliaments are watching us and listening to us. How we respond now will define the rest of this century, and our children’s children’s future. We are proud of our country for its role in protecting democracy in the past, and we must channel that pride into action. I urge all Members to raise their voices in support of Taiwan.
Let us strike a trade deal that benefits our economy and supports our ally; support their democratic values and their strength in being the No.1 democracy in Asia; and give Taiwan’s representatives in the UK the legal status they need. I call for Taiwan to be given a voice internationally, and to be readmitted to both the World Health Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Most importantly, let us ensure that everyone knows that we in this place stand clearly behind the US, as the main guarantor of Taiwan’s security, and our allies in the preservation of peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. We know that Taiwan has much to offer to the world. As our friend, it is our duty to ensure that its contribution is heard, accepted and embraced.

Virendra Sharma: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on leading this important debate. I must declare an interest, having been a guest of Taipei in the past. I welcome the ambassador and his team to the House this afternoon.
This month, we have been reminded more than ever of the importance of allies around the world, and of friendship with nations that are at risk from bullying neighbours. Taiwan is a liberal democracy. It has free and fair elections and a free press. Indeed, it outperforms the UK in international democracy rankings. Those are principles and a record worth defending. Just as we all look on cautiously at what is happening in Ukraine, the future of Taiwan, too, could change the world. It is in no one’s interest to see conflict, but, as we saw in Syria with President Obama’s red lines, a commitment to act that is not backed by action is a free pass for enemies of peace. President Biden and other Pacific allies understand the importance of Taiwan. The new-found focus on the Pacific will bear fruit. Stability, democracy and freedom are valuable and right. They are our own aims and values, and they should be recognised as such.
That is surely part of the reason why relations between Taiwan and the UK continue to improve. Nine out of 10 UK companies feel positive or very positive about their business outlook in Taiwan—an all-time high. Trade is booming, investment grows and British whisky is used to toast that success. Taiwan is a critical partner for the UK. As a world leader in high-tech manufacturing, Taiwan accounts for one fifth of global chip manufacturing and, it is estimated, half of all cutting-edge capacity. Any risk to that is a serious threat to the UK, and it would put the entire global supply chain at risk. The impact does not bear thinking about.
Taiwan is currently excluded from regional co-operation and trade bodies. While we may have chosen to exclude ourselves from our neighbours, Taiwan wants to make no such mistake. I hope the UK will continue to support Taiwan’s continued attempts at international participation. I urge partners around the world, including the World Health Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to co-operate with Taiwan. Taiwan has much to offer us in knowledge and expertise, and we should not allow it to be stifled.
The United States remains unparalleled in its importance, guaranteeing Taiwanese independence, and we must stand shoulder to shoulder against intimidation. I look forward to continued ministerial engagement with Taiwan, and to us being able to learn as much as possible from Taiwan’s sizeable healthcare experience. I urge the Government to afford the Taipei representative office in the UK some form of legal status and to ease existing restrictions on high-level Taiwanese officials travelling to the UK.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am very lucky to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma)—I do call him my hon. Friend—as they both covered so many of the issues that I would have covered. I am freed to  speak on a slightly wider area, because this is not just about the immediate proximity of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Taiwan; it is about the relationship that we have sadly had with Beijing in recent years.
A few years ago, I was privileged to be elected by the previous Parliament as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. One of the first things I wanted to do was to look at our relationship with China, to see how we could develop it, what we could improve, what we could make better and perhaps what we could put aside. I reached out to the then Chinese ambassador, was invited to meet China’s Potemkin Parliament and the Committee was invited to Beijing.
We did what we usually do and put in our visa requests, having already been told that, as guests of the National People’s Congress, they would go through. One of our members, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—I am glad to see him here today—was with us and China stopped the visa process. I was told that I had to demand that he apologise for being a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Taiwan. I know many people have ideas that Committee Chairs are getting too powerful, but even I did not think I had the power to silence him. Indeed, many Prime Ministers and many greater people than me have found that no one has the power to silence him.
I am delighted to say that the politburo and the chairman of the Central Military Commission, from which the man who claims to be President derives his real power, discovered that they do not have the power to silence my hon. Friend, either. He did not apologise and visas were issued. For me, it was a very important first lesson that we have to stand up for what really matters. We have to stand up for ourselves, for our democracy and for our freedom, and we have to be absolutely clear why we are doing it. Of course we wanted to visit Beijing, and of course the Chinese Government have the right to issue or not to issue visas to the Foreign Affairs Committee—that is absolutely fair, as they do not have to issue visas to us—but they do not have the right to decide who sits on the Committee, as that is the privilege of this House and of our people.
That was my first lesson on the kind of relationship we have with Beijing at the moment. It hugely reversed what I hoped would be a constructive direction, and I am very sorry that it did so. Many of us who have been to China on a few occasions think incredibly highly of the Chinese people and of the culture and civilisation that has developed in different communities—some Han, some Mongol, some Tibetan, some Uyghur. We know that the Hui people have harboured Islam in their hearts, and we know there are Christian communities that go back 1,600, 1,700 and maybe even 1,800 years in different parts of China. We know this is a culture that is expressed in many different ways, and it is not always in a single unitary state. This is an area that has given the world such enormous wealth, richness, diversity and innovation.

John Nicolson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of these peoples do not want to be Chinese? They want to be Tibetan, for instance. They are forced to remain within China’s boundaries against their will, and China refuses them the opportunity for self-determination, which is shameful.

Thomas Tugendhat: The hon. Gentleman will know very well that this country recognises that peoples in our community have the right to self-determination. In China, sadly, that has been taken away from people. I agree entirely that there are many peoples who the Chinese state calls Chinese, but who call themselves something else. We have always recognised that people choose their status, not Governments.
Let me come back to Taiwan and why the debate is so important. Many of us are focusing, understandably, on what is going on in Moscow. We are focusing on the journey that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took today to see her opposite number, Mr Lavrov. We are focused on the fact that we are seeing physical threats to borders in Europe for the first time since 2014—and that was the first time that had happened since 1945. We are seeing genuine aggression against free and sovereign people in a way that we have not in 60 or 70 years, except for in the case of the annexation of Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and, of course, Donetsk and Luhansk.
We are also seeing dictatorships trying to undermine democracies. We are seeing it because they have shown it to us. The relationship between Mr Putin and Mr Xi is extremely concerning. They have advertised it to us; they met in order to demonstrate their commitment to each other, and to undermining democracy and freedom around the world. That is why we are talking about Taiwan today. We are seeing a real moment in global politics—a point when we are more vulnerable than we have been for a long time. We see, sadly, a diversion of attention in Washington, confusion in Brussels, and a proliferation of different ideas, thoughts and challenges in Paris, Berlin and Rome.
We are seeing steel in Vilnius and Warsaw, and among many partners and friends. But sadly we are not seeing it as widely as we need to. That is exposing us to a double-edged risk—perhaps not just the risk that Russia may invade Ukraine. It may; 125,000 troops on the border suggests that it is possible. But Russia may also use this opportunity to demonstrate that there is confusion and division in the west, and use that to convince friends and allies that the deals that it has made in the last 20 or 30 years are no longer valid, and that they should bow down to Beijing and Moscow instead. That would be much more damaging to our long-term future, our peoples’ liberties, and our economic prosperity than many other decisions that could be taken. What is worse, the decision to do that in Ukraine would open up an opportunity to think about doing the same in Taiwan.
It is certainly true that any military invasion of Taiwan would be extremely difficult. The Chinese military—the People’s Liberation Army Navy, as it is somewhat bizarrely called—has been developing an amphibious capability that it thinks puts it in with a chance of a successful landing on Taiwan’s shores. I know—we all know—that is what it is doing; it is not a secret.

Alicia Kearns: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend when he is making such a good point, but does he agree that, very concerningly, some of the research, intelligence and information that underpin some of those new technological advances that China is making are coming from British universities, British researchers and British companies, where espionage is at large? It is funding them quite openly, yet there seems to be no  accountability in academia for the selling of what should be state-protected secrets to somebody who is clearly at odds with our own interests.

Thomas Tugendhat: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and I will come back to that point, because she will not be surprised to hear that I wish to build on it.
Those of us who have some experience of fighting in mountains know that it is a lot harder for the attacker than the defender. Those of us who have sadly spent too much time reading stories of Operation Overlord will know that even the short straits that separate us from northern France provided an extremely difficult obstacle for our forebears to get over. So 100 miles of really difficult water to cross on the straits of Taiwan really does present an obstacle. Indeed, the sea state there is often so difficult that only for very short windows is it possible to truly cross. The landing positions that the Chinese forces would need to assault are narrow and therefore likely to afford Taiwanese forces the ability to defend.
I do not think that we should really be looking at the military threat in the classical sense. Instead, we are looking at the military threat in the sense of what we see from Russia in Ukraine and, sadly, from China in other parts of the world. We are seeing an erosion—an erosion of the will to fight, an erosion of the nation state to hold together, and an erosion of the integrity of a society to resist pressure—and that is coming in many, many different ways.
The first, sadly, is in what has become known as fake news: the disinformation campaigns that we are seeing around the world, the extraordinary assaults on our intelligence, our intellect and our ability to talk to one another as equals by spreading the hatred and lies that we see, sadly, too frequently here in the UK, in the United States and in many other countries. We are seeing that being absolutely industrialised in countries such as Ukraine and Taiwan. They are not the sole aim of these targets, but merely the roadblock on the way to the rest, because this is intended to change the way in which the global economy works and the way in which our people—the British people—are able to live their lives and enjoy their futures. It is intended to erode our liberties so that a few rich men in Beijing and Moscow can enjoy their stolen goods and make sure that they sleep at night.
That is not acceptable. We were not elected to this place and charged with being here to sacrifice the freedoms of the British people to a couple of despots in Beijing or Moscow. Standing up with our allies and friends around the world is exactly what we should be doing, but again, this is not just about them, because the techniques that we are seeing in Taiwan and Ukraine are spreading here.
Today, like every day, businesses and individuals in Taipei and across the island will be the subject of quite literally millions of cyber-attacks. They are under such intense assault that it is very difficult to understand how many routine operations can continue, and yet they do. We are seeing the same type of assaults here in the UK—not the same volume, but the same type—and we therefore have a lot to learn from Taiwan in how it resists. The same is true in Ukraine, where we are seeing Russia learning a whole new way of doing warfare by interrupting everything from the electricity grid to the communications networks in order to undermine the capability of the state and society to hold together.
But we are also seeing that here in the UK and that brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton so rightly made. We are seeing an erosion of our own freedoms here in the UK, and not just through the dirty money that the Foreign Affairs Committee has been so clear in calling out since 2018. Indeed, I see on the Opposition Front Bench the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who was on the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time—promotion for some!
We have been calling this out for a long time because it is fundamentally undermining the prosperity and happiness of the British people. We are seeing properties being over-inflated in value. We are seeing assets being used to undermine us, not to support us. We are seeing assets of community value—football teams and businesses—being used effectively as a piggybank from which cash can be removed on future occasions for pay for operations on behalf of a state that thinks nothing of attempting to murder the Prime Minister of Montenegro, actually murdering a citizen in the United Kingdom using a nuclear substance, using chemical weapons on the streets of Salisbury, blowing up an arms dump in Prague, and threatening literally thousands of people with cold and famine by trafficking them and forcing them into the forests around Belarus to use as weapons against the people of Poland and Lithuania. This is not a co-operative state; it is a hostile state and these are its actions. Here, we need to do more about it. We need to stop the dirty money, which we have called for, but we need to go further, because we are also—this is the tragedy—seeing the erosion of the liberty of some British people. The freedoms that we value are the freedoms that we need to stand for.
Yesterday, sadly, for the 100th or 200th time—I cannot remember how many—I spoke to some students who told me that their debates in their universities were silenced. They said that people were not willing to speak out or to stand up for what they knew was true because they would face the pressure of the Ministry of State Security, China’s enforcement arm, in silencing them in debate here in the UK. I spoke to them about the nature of this interference and they said that sadly it often comes from a fellow student or from a teacher or lecturer who is connected in some way to the state. We are seeing the erosion of the liberty of British citizens and of those who have come here seeking that liberty, whichever country they come from, because we are sadly not robust enough in standing up for it.
We need to close down the Confucius Institutes. They are agencies of a hostile state through the United Front Work Department—an organisation that we in this House have grown used to in recent days because of the works of Christine Lee, who we were all warned about. We have got used to the actions that it has been taking in seeking influence, in the most extraordinary propaganda operation that the world has ever seen, and we have got used to the pernicious effect on our own community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton spoke about the theft of intellectual property—some of it, sadly, intellectual property that should remain secret. She is absolutely right. Defending state secrets is, after all, an essential role of government. But defending the liberty of British people to study and learn ideas of any  kind, of any form, in a free environment at a university or a school, is surely even more fundamental than that. We must maintain absolute freedom of our people to express their views, whether on Tibet, as my hon. Friend did, on the status of Hong Kong, or, as officials in Beijing did only the other day, on the status of the Falkland Islands. They can express their views however they wish. Silencing debate undermines us and erodes freedom. It also erodes our path to the future.
Let me tell the House why I am still optimistic, despite that catalogue of crimes that I think have been committed against us. When I look forward, I see beacons like Taiwan as a demonstration that, actually, free people choose freedom. I see an example showing that Chinese society and culture, in different forms, are intrinsically at home with liberty. I see the writings in the universal declaration of human rights—written by an ambassador from China, P.C. Chang—and I see the rights that are literally encoded in the fundamental documents of the international community. I therefore see the hope that the attempts of the Chinese state—the Communist party—to silence these people will eventually fail, because they will.
What we are seeing coming out of Taiwan is another example of why those attempts will fail. Many people will know that TSMC, the Taiwanese semiconductor chip manufacturer, constitutes an extraordinary demonstration of innovation and capability on the island. It is a fantastic example of the meeting of science and craft, in that it brings together the skills of innovation and the skills of creation. I think it fair to say that it is now one of the keystones of the global economy. Delays caused to its output by various water issues and other problems had a direct effect on the manufacturing of cars and kettles, even here in the UK. It is essential to our global economy, and it is telling that its extraordinary success is based on the free ideas and the creativity that are needed—or, rather, can only be achieved—in a free society. This is a very good reminder that liberty does not just feed the soul; it feeds the pocket, and it feeds prosperity for everyone.
We see people around the world making choices. We see the migrant routes out of various parts of the world, and we see where those migrants go. There are not that many who think that China or Russia is a good idea, but there are many who choose freedom in countries such ours. When I see the threats that are ranged before us, I feel that what we are seeing coming out of Beijing today, and what we are seeing coming out of Moscow today, is much more in keeping with Shakespeare’s King Lear than with Henry V.

Richard Graham: I am reluctant to intervene on a substantial speech in a field about which my hon. Friend is very knowledgeable. May I suggest, however, that the principal challenge for any Government when it comes to foreign affairs is fundamentally to deal with the world as it is, while also working for the world that we would wish for, and without inadvertently making it worse in so doing?
If my hon. Friend agrees with me on that point, does he also agree that the status quo in the constitutional position of the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, has actually enabled it to flourish in its evolution as a peaceful and successful democracy, within which its relationship with us has strengthened considerably over recent time? Does he agree that in all of this, our shared  values help to shape that relationship—and the fact that we are at the scoping stage of a Westminster Foundation for Democracy programme in Taiwan is one example of this—but that we should do nothing that might inadvertently trigger a reaction by China that would be good neither for the Chinese nor for us, and considering changing the name of their representation in the UK would be precisely such a measure?

Thomas Tugendhat: I entirely respect my hon. Friend’s position. As he knows, we have had many discussions on a similar basis and on a similar note outside this place. He is right that we have to deal with the world as it is and gently encourage it to be the world that it should be—it is safe to say that neither of us is a revolutionary. The work that my hon. Friend does with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is so important, because it builds on the essential liberty of people and on the fundamental principle that P. C. Chang embedded into the universal declaration of human rights: that of respect for individual choice and that a community should be able to choose its own destiny.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not for me to tell the Republic of China (Taiwan) how it wishes to name itself and what it wishes to choose, but nor is it for Beijing. It is for the people on the island of Taiwan to decide for themselves how they wish to shape their future. We here recognise that principle not just in overseas jurisdictions such as the Falkland Islands; we even recognised it in 2014 in respect of part of our integral United Kingdom. Although my hon. Friend and I were on the same side of the argument then and some on the Opposition Benches were on the other side, we all recognised the sovereignty of the people of these islands to choose the shape of their liberty and the way in which they expressed the community to which they felt they belonged. If we recognised that freedom even when it hurt us most and when it cost us dearest, why should we not recognise it for people who have absolutely the same inherent rights as anybody on these islands and have, indeed, demonstrated time and again that they have not only the capability but the will to express their freedom through democracy and to choose leaders whom we sometimes like and sometimes do not? Surely it is up to them, not up to Beijing.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but of course it is important to realise that Taiwan’s excellent President has deliberately avoided making any call for independence. The House should reflect on that in terms of our own position.

Thomas Tugendhat: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I repeat my statement: it is not for me to change the name of the representative of the island here, but it is for me to recognise that the people of that island have the right to choose.
We can, at this point, get into a different debate about Lithuania. I pay huge tribute to Mr Landsbergis, Lithuania’s Foreign Minister, for his courage in standing up against the bullying of Beijing. He has demonstrated that many larger countries that currently bow down and pretend they do not have a choice actually do have a choice. Lithuania may have a great past in which it was a huge grand duchy, but the reality of the size of the state today is that it is not one of the P5. Yet Lithuania has taken the courageous decision to defend itself.
I will close my speech with this last point: over the past four or five years we have seen an evolution of pressure on us and others around the world that is undermining democracy, that is eroding our freedoms and that imperils our economic future. This is a choice for us all. The decision to stand with free peoples in Taiwan and Ukraine is about standing up for our own liberties and freedoms. That is why the House is right to push for it and the Government are right to back it.

Margaret Ferrier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this important debate.
Taiwan has made significant progress while the People’s Republic of China has stalled. While China remains an authoritarian state, shrouded in secrecy and frequently accused of human rights abuses, Taiwan has taken the necessary steps to grow into something much more aligned with our modern-day values. Taiwan enjoys high levels of press freedom, unlike the PRC; has committed to important climate goals that are more ambitious than the PRC’s; and has built an inclusive and tolerant society. Taiwan has freedom of religious belief and is the only country in Asia to have legalised LGBTQ+ marriage.
Such extensive reforms mean that Taiwan is now categorised as a full democracy, ranking as the No. 1 democracy in Asia and the 11th worldwide, according to The Economist’s democracy index. It is impressive progress and further illustrates that Taiwan deserves, and has earned, a seat at the table.
Continuing to support Taiwan’s participation in international forums with only observer status is no longer enough. We should be leading from the front on the issue, not only by calling for it to be meaningfully included in the United Nations system, but by asking the international community to join us in those calls. With its rich cultural diversity and policy expertise, there is much it could contribute if it were allowed to. For example, its national health insurance scheme is internationally recognised as a model national healthcare system with good accessibility and national coverage, yet it is still excluded from the World Health Assembly.
As the seventh-largest economy in Asia, and the 21st globally, strong trade ties between the UK and Taiwan would be economically hugely mutually beneficial. Being Scottish, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the value of Scotch whisky. In 2020, it was the fourth-largest international market for the drink. In that year, the value of Scottish goods exports to Taiwan was about £206 million, which is the second-highest region in the UK as defined by Department for International Trade statistics. From a moral perspective, it would exemplify our core trading principles of democracy and human rights.
Strengthening our diplomatic ties would serve to strengthen defence and security measures too. China continues to modernise its military. The Government admit that
“China’s…growing international assertiveness will pose an increasing risk to UK interests.”
China has made flagrant incursions into Taiwan’s waters and airspace in a way that could be defined as aggressive.
I am cautious of conflating two different issues, but it is difficult to set aside the current political context of the tension on the borders of Ukraine. President Xi Jinping has given President Putin his support in his campaign against an expansion of NATO, which further aligns the two nations in the face of tension with the west. Although there are clear differences between Ukraine and Taiwan in their history, current political climate and hypothetical international responses, the basic issue of sovereignty remains at the heart of both. As long as Russia and China align themselves, the world will wonder what there is to gain and why China is watching what happens in Ukraine so closely.
The Government take the stance that relations in the Taiwan strait should be resolved through constructive dialogue and that it is not the UK’s place to intervene unnecessarily, but we should recognise the benefits of supporting Taiwan’s future development and take the steps to do it. The Government should not support the oppression of any independent states by authoritarian Governments whether proactively or, as is the case here, passively. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out the Government’s position on the continuing co-operation and friendship between the UK and Taiwan.

Bob Stewart: As the chair of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group, of course I have become concerned at the growing intimidation that the country is experiencing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) outlined so well. Taiwan is one of the UK’s most stalwart supporters and trading partners, and it donated more than 1 million masks to our NHS during the covid crisis, which is a very decent thing to do.
We have already heard that about 23.5 million people live in Taiwan. We have also heard that it is a fully functioning democracy. It has a very good record of holding free and fair elections and there has not been much time since it started doing so. When those elections occur, and one party loses, the transfer of power is pretty smooth, which is not often the case in many other countries in Asia.
We have also heard that, diplomatically, Taiwan is banned from United Nations membership. We chucked it out—it was us. We effectively chucked it out of the Security Council; that is the end of it. I understand why it happened, but we were part of that movement. It has also been expelled from the observer status it held in the World Health Organisation. Again, the medical teams it sends out when there is a disaster are world beating. Those teams are first rate.
China consistently opposes anything Taiwan does. For instance, it refuses to accept Taiwanese passports and denies entry to any international forum where it has influence—and that is quite a lot of them now. Economically, China is perfectly willing to accept Taiwanese money to invest in the country, but it refuses to accept or allow any other commercial activity from the island. At the same time, we have heard from many other hon. Members that Taiwan is under constant and unmitigated cyber-attack from China, reaching into every aspect of Taiwanese society.
There is now a large British business presence in Taiwan; UK investment in Taiwan reached £450 million in 2020, covering a wide range of sectors, from financial services to pharmaceuticals, from information and communications technology to offshore wind. As we have Scottish representatives here, I must say that Taiwan whisky was voted the world’s best three years running: there is currently Kavalan in my office and I very much enjoy it. [Interruption.] Is that an intervention from my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? No? Let me carry on.
Currently, I gather, British companies are investing in 1,307 projects in Taiwan. We have also heard that in September last year, Taiwan submitted its application to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are planning to join that too, and I very much hope the Minister will confirm that we would support Taiwan’s membership.
Militarily—I have looked at this quite a lot over the past few years—the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is having its defence expenditure increased by about 10% a year, year on year. It is reorganising. My hon. Friend the Member for—

Thomas Tugendhat: Tonbridge and Malling.

Bob Stewart: Dear me, I am so sorry. I should know that. It is not far away. He made the point that the army is reorganising for expeditionary warfare, meaning amphibious landings, even though Taiwan is 100 miles away. I am particularly worried about the way the islands and atolls, which we have not mentioned, in the South China sea are being colonised—and I do use that word, colonised. They are being occupied, expanded and militarised. In truth, they are well outside China’s traditional area of interest. The Chinese intention is clear: to make the whole South China sea national waters of China.
In the air, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force crossed the median line of the Taiwan strait 950 times in 2021, a 150% increase in air activity over the previous year. Since 1 January, I gather there have been 143 intrusions in just over a month. It particularly worries me that the No. 1 openly expressed aim of Chinese policy is to take back Taiwan. Indeed, Peter Dutton, the Defence Minister of Australia, has openly declared that he believes the Chinese will be going into Taiwan very soon. What does “going into Taiwan” mean? To me, it could mean a military invasion. So there is a growing and present threat to Taiwan from mainland China, and of course that should worry us. It worries us because 40% of the world’s trade transits through the South China sea. What happens in those crucial trade groups must be of great concern to us.
As a soldier I served in Hong Kong. I thought it was a great place, fabulous. It used to share our values of civil liberty, democracy and the rule of law, but recently all that is fast disappearing. In the region, Taiwan remains a beacon of democracy. It also has huge strategic importance. I believe it is in the frontline of the global struggle to resist authoritarian efforts to undermine human rights, the rule of law and freedom of speech, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling outlined much better than I could. I agree that it is very good news that Taiwan that has now legalised LGBTQ marriage. It is the only country in Asia that has, by the way.

Tim Loughton: I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. What he is putting so well is the very many shared values we have with Taiwan, the sort of freedom, openness and innovation that the people of Hong Kong used to enjoy as well. That is surely a template for what the Chinese Communist party would like to do with Taiwan if ever it had the opportunity to do so. Does he share my great fear? The great design of President Xi, as he has made no pretence of hiding, is what he calls the reunification of China, which could only mean bringing the freedom-loving and freedom-enjoying people of Taiwan under the jackboot of the Chinese Communist party, and inflict on them the same form of intimidation and oppression the people of Tibet, Xinjiang and now the people of Hong Kong are sadly seeing?

Bob Stewart: My very good and hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have said in the Chamber before that if China was to develop a model much like Taiwan, it would be to the benefit of China. Taiwan is the beacon. It is a hugely successful economy. It is good news that there are some 13,000 Taiwanese students in British universities, with 4,000 at postgraduate level. By way of return, which I think is very interesting, there are an increasing number of British students studying in Taiwan. They are mainly learning Mandarin, of course.

Alicia Kearns: Earlier, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee rightly raised Confucius Institutes. Members may not know that the country with the highest number of Confucius Institutes per head of population is Scotland. That should be of grave concern. Does my right hon. Friend think that, given that Taiwanese people speak Mandarin and write a higher level of more ancient Chinese, we could perhaps look to them to provide more education in Mandarin in this country? Let me make one other quick point on drawing comparisons. Does he find it interesting that the Chinese Government have felt the need to sanction both Taiwanese and British parliamentarians? How shameful it is that they continue to attack our democracies.

Bob Stewart: The answer to both of my hon. Friend’s questions is yes and yes. I totally agree. I note that President Tsai Ing-wen has committed Taiwan to having Mandarin and English as dual official languages within eight years, which is tremendous.
I am conscious of time, and I have banged on for longer than I thought I would. [Hon. Members: “Never!”] I always do, for far too long. In summary, we and all people in the world who think like us should do everything we can to defend the democracy and values of Taiwan. Its security challenges and survival as a thriving, successful model mean a great deal to us and to the world.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) very much for her excellent introduction to the debate. The contributions so far have been enlightening. I must also thank the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution. On most occasions, he and I are on the same page on almost everything. I noted his comment about whiskey and understand that Bushmills whiskey from Northern Ireland is one of the best sellers in Taiwan, so perhaps we have strong economic relations as well.

Bob Stewart: I assure the hon. Member, who is a very good friend, that I also have Black Bush—a Northern Irish whiskey—in my office and have always had a sample of it for 35 years.

Jim Shannon: I am not surprised—by the way, I suspect that it is half-empty. [Interruption.] Perhaps more than half. In seriousness, the debate is about strengthening the ties between Taiwan and the UK, and I am proud to be associated with Taiwan, which is a bastion of freedom in an oppressed area. Taiwan stands out clearly to me, to all those who have spoken and to all who will speak after as a bastion of democracy and liberty. Information kindly provided to me highlights that, since the 1980s, Taiwan has overseen democratic reforms. Significantly, in 2020, it rose 20 places in The Economist democracy index to 11th worldwide, which shows its commitment to liberty, freedom and democracy.
Taiwan ranks as the No. 1 democracy in Asia, with The Economist describing it as 2020’s “star performer” and upgrading it to the “full democracy” category. It is in the interests of the UK and all liberal democracies to promote peace and stability in the region, especially as the UK increases its level of engagement with the Indo-Pacific region and aims to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It seems to me, as Member of Parliament for Strangford and on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, that our relationship with Taiwan is incredibly good and perhaps we can build on it.
In building a network of liberty, Taiwan has become the frontline of democracy against China’s expanding authoritarianism, and I stand with Taiwan in that aim. I absolutely love the Olympics and follow it every morning, looking for those medals to come—so far, they have not, but we live in hope—but I watch our great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team at the Winter Olympics in the knowledge of China’s ongoing treatment of the Uyghurs, the Christians, the Tibetans and the Falun Gong practitioners. My friend the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), and I have spoken about this very issue on many occasions and, whether it is in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, we are on the same page. It concerns me greatly that China’s expansionism and imperialistic goals are at the expense of those Christians and other ethnic minorities. We see those who happen to have a different religious outlook or view on the world subjected to commercial-level organ transplantation.
Although we are focusing on UK-Taiwan friendship and co-operation today, I am conscious that at the same time there is an axis of evil, to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea—four countries, two of which are trying to perfect nuclear power and two of which already have. I am incredibly worried about that. For instance, I understand that in the last week Iran has perfected a missile that can travel 900 miles; North Korea is trying to do the same, although Russia and China are certainly behind on the expertise. But if those missiles can reach 900 miles, they can strike at the heart of Israel and other western countries in the middle east. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the axis of evil shows that we need to have a steely reserve. Although we have seen some of that, I am not sure that we have seen enough. Quite honestly, we need to strike fear into the axis of evil to ensure that  those countries understand that if they do something out of place, we will be in a position to strike back with the same intensity.
Way back in 2012 and 2013, I took part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I have always remembered our visit to Kenya, because the roads built in Kenya in 2012 and 2013—and probably before—were built by the Chinese. The Chinese influence goes far beyond the far east to the middle east, Africa and South America, with China using vast amounts of finance to encourage countries to withdraw their allegiance or political support for Taiwan. Again, China is core to that axis of evil.
When I see a nation like Taiwan, it is beyond difficult for me to understand how we could not do everything possible to strengthen the relationship—not simply to benefit our nation, but to support democracy in Taiwan. In the military sphere, there is a greater role for the UK to co-ordinate with the US, Japan and Australia, as it tilts to the Indo-Pacific. It is essential that Taiwan is a part of that delicate balance. We must ensure that Taiwan knows that we are on its page and are there to support it.
Over the course of 2021, there were 950 intrusions by People’s Liberation Army Air Force military planes into the Taiwan zone, which is an 150% increase on the 380 sorties recorded in 2020. In January 2022, there were 143 intrusions within 24 days. There is a consistent and worrying build-up in such cases. Looking at the aircraft that China is sending in gives us an idea that its intentions could well be destruction, evil and murder. The military aircraft used in these activities include, but are not limited to: the H-6 strategic bomber; JH-7 fighter jets; reconnaissance models; and the Y-9 electronic warfare aircraft. Those are all part of the influence of that country.
It is clear that things are escalating, and our support for Taiwan is necessary not simply from the perspective of military aid, but because we rely on Taiwan to be able to carry out its business. For instance, Taiwan is estimated to account for a fifth of global chip manufacturing and half of all cutting-edge capacity. Our dependence on Taiwan is important for us in the free world—not just for us here in the UK, but for everyone. Any action that could impact Taiwan’s production and disrupt that vital global supply chain would be of concern to the UK and the whole world.
Total trade in goods and services—exports plus imports—between the UK and Taiwan was £8 billion in the four quarters to the end of quarter 3, 2021. That was an increase of 14.4% or £999 million on the four quarters to the end of quarter 3, 2020. Our trade with Taiwan is important and growing, and can continue to grow. Taiwanese companies have invested in 222 projects in the United Kingdom. British companies have invested in a total of 1,307 projects in Taiwan.
We already have a clear and vital relationship, which we can—and must—build on. The message from this House today is clear from me, my party and as part of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: we stand with Taiwan, be assured of that. We are committed to Taiwan physically, emotionally, financially and culturally, and we hope that economically we can grow. We must not allow the independence of this stalwart nation to be overcome. Rather than lament the further erosion of democracy,  now is the time to strengthen mutually beneficial ties, and to keep an eye on the long game. We are in the business of the long game, and we have got to get it right.

Andrew Rosindell: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on leading this debate today to discuss British-Taiwanese relations. It is a true friend to our country, and it is high time that we discussed it on the Floor of the House. Taiwan is a beacon of liberty, freedom and democracy in a region of the world overshadowed by a larger neighbour that has demonstrated, time and again, total disregard for human rights and freedoms.
The United Kingdom shares a deep and enduring relationship with Taiwan. Taiwan is a true friend to the United Kingdom. We share the same values. We enjoy close bilateral co-operation, and Taiwan is one of our most significant trading partners. Taiwan is exactly the kind of sovereign, forward-looking, collaborative nation that global Britain should be forging stronger ties with. Now that Britain is free of the constraints of the European Union, I urge the Minister for Asia, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), to make it one of her priorities.
From its exemplary response to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic, to its pioneering work in technology, Taiwan is a country to emulate and one that the United Kingdom should certainly be working together with much more closely. In contrast, the People’s Republic of China is, to be clear, a totalitarian, anti-democratic, communist state that continues its threatening campaign of fear and intimidation against the people of Taiwan.

James Sunderland: I agree completely with what my hon. Friend is saying. Taiwan is one of the great success stories of the far east. It has a multicultural liberal democracy, a growing economy, fantastic trade and many political freedoms and press freedoms. It is superbly championed worldwide, not least by the excellent Taipei representative in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that Taiwan should be celebrated and not threatened?

Andrew Rosindell: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Taiwan is a model of a country that has succeeded against all the odds. It is a nation that should be upheld as a great example of what can be achieved in a part of the world where there are so many failing countries. Taiwan has bucked the trend and proved that it can be successful, so I hope that in this House today we will celebrate Taiwan and all its achievements.
In 2022, the behaviour by the People’s Republic of China, and how it threatens Taiwan, is completely unacceptable, and the United Kingdom must stand shoulder to shoulder with Taiwan. I hope that today in this House we can restate our strong friendship and commitment to Taiwan and the magnificent Taiwanese people. For me, it has always felt wrong that the United Kingdom does not have any formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan and no official embassy while, at the same time, China can use economic leverage to bludgeon other states to cut ties with Taiwan.
It was our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who visited Taiwan in 1992 and hailed Taiwan’s rapid democratisation and the Taiwanese miracle. She recognised Taiwan for what it still is: an example of how freedom has triumphed. Some years later, in 2013, the Taiwanese  ambassador’s exclusion from Lady Thatcher’s funeral at St Paul’s Cathedral—decided by the Cabinet Office, I have to say, and despite my personal efforts and appeals to Ministers at that time—was a stark demonstration of the vindictive effect of China’s insistence that Taiwan should be completely excluded from any kind of diplomatic representation.
The Chinese Communist party operates indirectly, cutting off Taiwan’s support networks and isolating it diplomatically. It cannot be right to force a country such as Taiwan, which, to all intents and purposes, is an independent, democratic, sovereign state, to operate permanently under the terms of another hostile country. The CCP should not be able to dictate Taiwan’s bilateral relations with any other state in a world where self-determination of peoples is something that we all expect, or so I thought. It is a right. It is time that the western democracies looked afresh at the policy of not allowing Taiwan the diplomatic presence it needs and truly deserves.
I pay tribute to the work of His Excellency Ambassador Kelly, and his incredible and dedicated team who operate the Taipei representative office in London, for building ever stronger relations with the United Kingdom. If ever there was an example of an ambassador who works extremely hard to build a relationship with our country, it is Ambassador Kelly. I thank him for all he does to build those friendships and relationships with the peoples of this United Kingdom. I thank his staff for all their work with parliamentarians on both sides of the House, particularly the British-Taiwanese all-party group; they do a magnificent job. As vice-chairman of the all-party group, and indeed president of Conservative Friends of Taiwan, I am proud to have worked with Ambassador Kelly and all his predecessors for around three decades, ever since the Free Chinese Centre existed in London way back in the 1980s. My friendship with Taiwan goes back all that way, and I am very proud of it.
I have had the honour of visiting Taiwan on many occasions. My first visit was in 1998, when I was there as chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, the global right-of-centre youth organisation. I worked closely with the Kuomintang, which was then in power. More recently, in 2017, I led a delegation of the UK Parliament to Taiwan through the all-party group. I was privileged to meet President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan’s very own Iron Lady, who takes no nonsense from Beijing, and rightly so. I also recently met the Deputy Foreign Minister of Taiwan during his visit to London just prior to Christmas.
It is clear that dialogue and diplomacy are the greatest tools in our arsenal to support the people of Taiwan, and it is essential that we continue these exchanges. I commend and support my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee—so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who spoke earlier in this debate—and I wish them Godspeed as they visit Taiwan in a couple of weeks. I am only sorry that I will not be joining them on this occasion, but I have visited many times and hope to do so again.
Today, China casts a long red shadow over Taiwan. I believe it is our duty to stand with Taiwan alongside the United States of America, our European allies and our friends in the Asia-Pacific region, India, Australia and Japan, to defend the freedom of the Taiwanese people against any possible aggression that threatens Taiwan’s  democratic way of life. The crackdown in Hong Kong shows China’s willingness to repudiate democracy and install its own authoritarian rule, despite international condemnation and opposition, so we must treat any assault on Taiwan as a direct assault on our own liberal democracy. We cannot walk by on the other side; we must stand with Taiwan. We must also ensure that the light of democracy shines through. Indeed, the white sun of the Taiwanese flag reminds us that the ideals of liberty and freedom must always prevail.
Strengthening our relationship further will send an unambiguous signal to China that aggression will not be tolerated. In this vein, I ask the Minister: why should Taiwan not be allowed to participate in the World Health Organisation, Interpol and the different bodies within the United Nations, including the International Civil Aviation Organisation? I hope that Taiwan, together with us, will be joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—two great free trading nations joining together—and why not observer membership of the Commonwealth? We have heard already about English becoming a dual common language of Taiwan, so why not at least observer status in the Commonwealth? Would that not be a great symbol of friendship between Britain, the Commonwealth and the people of Taiwan?
This is the 21st century, and Taiwan’s exclusion is shocking and, quite frankly, dangerous. Taiwan demonstrated its value early in 2020. It raised concerns that covid-19 could be spread through person-to-person transmission before the People’s Republic of China did, yet that is where the virus originated. The implementation of a virus screening programme for international arrivals meant that the coronavirus was contained without resorting to full lockdowns. The world should have learnt from Taiwan in those early days of the pandemic, but not being part of the WHO, its early warning was downplayed. This example illustrates that these are crucial organisations that Taiwan should be involved in, for the benefit of its own people, for their safety and security, and the rest of the world, too. Why should it not be there, participating as a player in that organisation?
We need Taiwan to play its part in the exchange of ideas and to share its technical knowledge and expertise. The people of Taiwan also demonstrated their commitment to the friendship with the United Kingdom when they donated 1 million surgical masks to our NHS at a time of critical need. They have our gratitude, which demonstrates the character and virtue of the close ties with Taiwan.
The United Kingdom must now focus on developing a free exchange of goods and ideas, technological innovation, mutual support and co-operation with our Taiwanese friends. There should be no reason why Britain should not also quickly pursue a free trade agreement with Taiwan, so let us make that a priority in the coming years. Free trade and democracy will continue to bind us together and strengthen a dynamic, forward-looking relationship with Taiwan, as we seize the new opportunities for collaboration that I believe lie before us.
Let me conclude by wishing the people of Taiwan good fortune, good health and prosperity for the lunar new year. In this the year of the tiger, let us this day send the people of Taiwan a clear and unambiguous message that they have and will continue to have the steadfast and unwavering support of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Bob Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this important debate, and thank everyone who has spoken in it. Taiwan, though it may not be large, is very important economically—a point that has been made—morally and politically, because it developed into a flourishing, genuine, established democracy at a time when many countries in the region went in the opposite direction. It is a peaceful democracy that makes no aggressive territorial claims on its neighbours and poses no threat to any of them. That, of course, is in great contrast to those who make aggressive territorial claims on Taiwan. That is why we should stand foursquare in support of Taiwan. We ought to be supportive of those who embrace values of democracy and freedom, and who wish to co-exist peacefully with others, secure prosperity for themselves, and contribute to the greater global good, which is what Taiwan has always sought to do.
I declare my interest as a member of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group. I, too, have had the pleasure of visiting it, and have met many Taiwanese representatives when they have come here, and I, too, salute the work of Ambassador Kelly and the Taipei representative office in the UK. He and his predecessors—we have had a number of representatives over the years—have done great work for their country, and to improve our relations.
I appreciate that the exclusion of Taiwan from many international organisations is unjust, unfair and unhelpful to the greater good. Changing that is not unilaterally in this country’s gift, but I hope that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to make the case for that, and to seek to build a coalition with our democratic allies and partners in order to achieve that objective. We have to be persistent on that. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we must never give up hope that decency and freedom will ultimately prevail against the forces of darkness, which are unfortunately in coalition against us.
I want to talk about the importance of Taiwan’s evolution; under Chiang Kai-shek, in the early days of the Kuomintang, it was a frankly autocratic society that did not always respect the rule of law, though there was nothing like the appalling behaviour on mainland China after the civil war. Taiwan was able to move away from that without disruption or violence. It became a functioning democracy that respects the rule of law and has established a vibrant, independent judiciary and legal framework. When I had the pleasure of visiting Taiwan, I had the honour of meeting President Tsai, whom I greeted as a fellow alumnus of the London School of Economics, where she did a doctorate of philosophy in law; she trained as a lawyer.
Taiwan has developed a vigorous and robust legal system. Since the 1990s, it has increasingly asserted the independence of the judiciary from the other arms of the state. In fact, the independent justice movement of the 1990s was one of the beacons that led to the democratisation of Taiwan’s society. Many of its leading lights were lawyers and jurists. That demonstrates the  importance internationally of commitment to independent judges, courts and lawyers, and the rule of law. Taiwan has moved in exactly the direction that we should encourage others to take.
It is interesting that, since 2002, Taiwan has moved from having an inquisitorial system in criminal cases to something much closer to the adversarial system with which we in common-law countries are familiar—a system in which both sides have the right to be represented by counsel. I hope that we will continue to use the fact that we are the birthplace of common law and of that adversarial criminal justice system to try to assist Taiwan and build bridges. I hope that we can encourage British lawyers to develop partnerships with Taiwanese lawyers, and can build on the work of our further education contacts. The President is a great example of that, and of soft power. I hope, too, that we can encourage the work of the British Council, whose representatives I had the pleasure of meeting in Taipei, because it is an important means of developing those contacts, which we do not always make enough of.
Taiwan has undertaken further reforms in this field. In 2006, it abolished the regrettable mandatory death penalty for certain classes of offence, which it inherited in the days immediately after the war. In fact, there has been an almost complete cessation in the use of the death penalty in recent years, with one unfortunate exception, and there is still a vigorous and active campaign to support that change.
In 2009, Taiwan ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which sets it apart from those who aggressively assert claims against it. A threshold for joining those covenants was an acceptance that Taiwan was on an
“irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty.”
Moving forward, we see a progressive and, in the proper sense, small-l liberal polity and system, which we ought to be supporting.
It is important to recognise, as has already been observed, the progress that Taiwan has made in relation to same-sex marriages and equal rights for LGBT communities. Generally, it has a good position, compared with many of its neighbours, on the index of commitment to the rule of law. That is something we should continue to sustain. As we go forward, I hope we can build upon those links.
Contrast has been made frequently to what has sadly happened in Hong Kong. I have had the pleasure of visiting that jurisdiction too, and it is a sadness to me, as when I read law at the London School of Economics a number of my colleagues went on to qualify as barristers in the United Kingdom, before returning to practice at the Hong Kong Bar. Some went on to hold distinguished office in the Hong Kong judiciary. They did so at a time when they still had the protection of the agreements we had entered into to ensure Hong Kong’s independent legal system. Sadly, those have been unliterally abrogated by the Government of the People’s Republic of China. I never want to see that happen to the legal system in Taiwan. I privately weep, almost, for some of my friends who stayed in their country, but who now see their freedom of action and manoeuvre as lawyers increasingly constrained, and a stranglehold put on what was once  the most vibrant and successful legal and judicial system to be found in that part of south-east Asia. We must not let that happen to Taiwan.
That is why not only shall we stand four-square with the Taiwanese in political and moral terms, but, where necessary, without seeking to start aggression, we will ensure that military and naval force is available to deter aggression by others, and we will work closely with our allies, including Australia and others in that area. If we believe in democracy, the importance of the rule of law, human rights and personal freedoms, Taiwan is a beacon that we shall support.
It is important that we have this debate and we place this motion on the record. As a country, we have always sought to assert these things, sometimes with more success than at other times, but they are basically in our DNA. With the dispensation we have now in Taiwan, that is something we share with the Taiwanese people, who have worked hard to achieve that, at real sacrifice to themselves, over the years. It is important that we reassert our commitment to stand by them, against those who seek to snuff out the lights of freedom and justice. We must never allow that to happen.

Owen Thompson: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this important debate.
I genuinely consider it an honour and a pleasure to be speaking on my party’s behalf in this debate. Before we had decided I would do so, I had already asked to speak in the debate, having visited Taiwan as part of an international youth culture and study tour back in 2013—believe it or not, I still qualified under the term “youth” at that stage—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). We had a wonderful two-week official visit and then some of us stayed on for a number of days to further experience the culture and landscapes of Taiwan, across Taipei, Taichung and Tainan. So it is a wonderful opportunity to take part in the debate today.
One of the most important aspects of this debate is democracy and the principle of self-determination. Hugh MacDiarmid once wrote of Robert Burns:
“Mair nonsense has been uttered in his name than in ony’s, barrin liberty and Christ.”
The same, in some senses, could be said about self-determination, so lest it become a buzzword, let us remind ourselves of exactly what that means: it is a group of people’s right to determine how and by whom they wish to be governed. What that means in practice is that when we stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression, we stand for self-determination. When the UK reminds Argentina about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, we are standing for self-determination. When the Scottish Government assert that Scots deserve the right to have a say in our future by voting for a pro-independence Government, as they did last year, we are asserting our right to self-determination. We do not get to pick and choose who is allowed self-determination. The whole principle is that we accept that when the people choose what they want as their course for the future. Therefore, if we accept that Ukraine has self-determination, and that the Falklands has it, Scotland has it and so does Taiwan. No ifs, and no buts.

Andrew Rosindell: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s views about self-determination, but would he accept that both the Falkland Islands and Scotland have had referendums in recent years? The people of Taiwan have never had a referendum, but perhaps they should. If they had a referendum, they could determine their own destiny.

Owen Thompson: Where I would agree with the hon. Gentleman is that if the people of Taiwan wanted to have a referendum—and it is entirely a matter for the people of Taiwan—I would be 100% behind it. I think people would be astonished to find any disagreement about that among SNP Members. However, self-determination is not a one-time event, one vote and that is the end of it; self-determination is an ongoing process. That is why the SNP believes that an important consideration in determining how Taiwan is governed is what the people of Taiwan want, and how they express those desires at the ballot box.
Viewers in Scotland will already be well acquainted with the double standards of the UK Government when it comes to Scottish self-determination, but at times the Government also fall short of honouring that important principle when it comes to Taiwan. The UK does not recognise Taiwan enough and, as we have heard, there are no formal diplomatic relations with the island. That is something that could be simply looked at and corrected.

John Nicolson: It has been deeply heartening to hear so many Conservatives throughout this debate champion the idea of self-determination. Given that there is no international court of arbitration to determine self-determination for countries such as Tibet, is it not all the more important for countries such as the UK to stand up, and for their Governments to be not cowardly but outspoken in supporting those peoples?

Owen Thompson: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is critical that the UK Government lead by example. If we say that we support the right of people to choose, we must demonstrate that we support the right of people to choose. An SNP-led independent Scotland would support Taiwanese accession to multilateral organisations such as the World Health Organisation, recognising Taiwanese wishes to be an active and co-operative global player. Our friendship runs deep and goes beyond the principles of democracy and how we practise it.
We have already heard from many about the huge democratic reforms that have taken place in Taiwan from the ’80s through to the current day, and about the major progress that now sees Taiwan highlighted as a star performer and the No.1 democracy in Asia. However, Taiwan’s deepening democracy chimes with the Scottish Government’s agenda, with both Scotland and Taiwan seeking to broaden and deepen democratic participation. There is a lot we can learn from each other, such as Taiwan’s world-leading efforts to leverage technology and citizen participation into a system of digital democracy, which was most recently credited with containing covid in Taiwan.
Speaking of covid, we have heard about Taiwan’s handling of the pandemic and how exemplary it has been, despite its having only observer status rather than full membership of the WHO. When it comes to technology,  it cannot be overstated how important the Taiwanese technological sector is for Scotland and the UK. Semiconductor chips—a resource now essential to all our online lifestyles—are overwhelmingly made in Taiwan, so trade link security is vital. The Scottish Government recognised this and opened a virtual Scottish Development International office in Taipei. Scotland has a positive story to tell on trade with Taiwan, and there are many areas of potential growth w full trading powers after independence. To name a few sectors with huge potential for trade and co-operation, we need look no further than the UK’s list of market access ambitions following the 24th annual UK-Taiwan trade talks: energy, offshore wind power, financial services, agriculture and whisky. These are all Scottish specialties.
As a fan of a malt myself, I cannot help but mention that, according to the Scotch Whisky Association, Taiwan was the fourth largest export destination for Scotch whisky by value in 2020, so slàinte to that. I particularly enjoy Taiwanese whisky, which has a very distinct taste—there is a certain sweetness that is not there in some of the single malts from up the road.
Trade opportunities are, of course, supplemented by academic collaboration. Between 7,000 and 8,000 Taiwanese students study in the UK each year, and Taiwan’s aim to become a society that is fully bilingual in English and Mandarin will make collaboration even easier.
The parallels between Scotland and Taiwan, and our shared ambitions, also extend to our climate priorities. The Taiwanese Government have committed to achieving net zero by 2050, with a target of 25% renewable energy by 2025. British Office Taipei has promoted UK offshore wind companies, many from Scotland, to Taiwanese partners. There is also scope for climate co-operation with the Scottish Government’s ScotWind strategy. Scottish Development International is exploring the possibility of a strategic partnership with Taiwan that would allow renewable energy supply chain companies to access the Taiwanese market much more easily.
Among all this, we cannot avoid the elephant in the room. China’s current denial of Taiwan’s right to self-determination and its insistence that Taiwan is merely a stray province of the PRC is a major concern. All this puts Taiwan’s future at risk, and we have a moral obligation in this place to stand against it, as we do to protect the self-determination of all peoples and nations.
Taiwan’s principled moves set an example to Scotland that small states can punch well above their weight. In an increasingly fraught and global world, smaller does not have to mean weaker. We have concerns that the Government’s integrated review makes no mention of Taiwan, and I hope they will correct that omission by reflecting the importance of Taiwan in their China strategy. It is perplexing that Taiwan is not afforded due consideration in the Government’s most recent foreign policy document. I sincerely hope that concern will be seriously considered and acted on.
When I look back at my time in Taiwan, I think of the friends I made from South Africa, Norway, Sweden, St Kitts, Bermuda and across the globe. We had a wonderful time exchanging ideas and thoughts with each other, and these will always be friendships. To the people of Taiwan, I simply say, “Yŏngyuăn de péngyou.”

Catherine West: Xièxie, wǒ men dōu shì péngyou. That was a lovely finish to the speech by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), and I am sure we could all practise our Mandarin.
A big thank you—a big xièxie—to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for, once again, securing an excellent Thursday debate that shows the importance of our Parliament to the Taiwanese Parliament and the Taiwanese people by putting on record our friendship. Our voices come from different political parties, but we are saying broadly the same thing about the importance of the deep and rich friendship between the UK and Taiwan.
Although the UK has no formal diplomatic relationship with Taiwan, we can be proud of the people-to-people relationships, of which we have heard, from people’s different trips according to different themes. Those relationships will transcend politics and diplomacy. We have heard that British and Taiwanese students engage in fruitful and mutually beneficial exchange programmes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said, our businesses work closely to invest in the technologies of the future. Our doctors and scientists co-operate on how to learn and treat illnesses such as covid, which Taiwan has done so well to handle without the level of death and disruption experienced by so many other countries across the globe.
On a broader level, we can say with some confidence that Taiwan is a beacon of liberty in the Asia-Pacific. It was the first Asian country to recognise same-sex marriage. It is a vibrant and functioning multi-party liberal democracy with a booming tech sector and a free press. It is a recognised global leader in health and education. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) gave us an important lesson in the progress that has been made from the days of the Kuomintang all the way through to today and the exchange that we can now have on the legal practices in the UK and in Taiwan. We also think about the sadness that we all share that, unfortunately, things could be going in reverse in Hong Kong, which is usually such a beacon of legal practice.
There are, however, clear and present challenges facing the people of Taiwan. The Chinese Government have made no attempt to disguise their willingness to use force to occupy Taipei if their persuasion on reunification fails. It is crucial that we use opportunities such as today to underline our resolve to stand with the people of Taiwan in the face of threats to their liberty and way of life, and to put on record our concern regarding the increase in military activity around the waters of Taiwan. We in this House should say with one voice that Taiwan’s future should never be settled by force or coercion.
Members from across the House have given examples of their connections with Taiwan and their friendships, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). I know that the Minister will want to respond in some depth to what has been raised. In particular, will she respond to the points that were made eloquently by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) about the lack of an overarching strategy for the region? That is really what he was laying out, including the way in which this relates not just to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office,  but goes across education, business and investment and the trade piece, so that we can have a genuinely cohesive strategy in future.
I have four quick questions for the Minister. The first is on Taiwan’s membership of international organisations. We have all mentioned that because when we have a global pandemic, such as the one we have all been through, it is crucial that we can learn from one another. We would all be the first to say that this goes beyond politics or diplomacy: to save lives, we must hear about best practice. That is what we have seen in the health system and the public health approach in Taiwan because of the experience of SARS— severe acute respiratory syndrome—and other public health challenges. It is terrible that it was frozen out of the World Health Assembly and other similar international bodies. Next time it will be a different challenge, but this is my first challenge to the Minister: will she outline the UK’s position on Taiwan’s membership of the World Health Assembly and other organisations? I urge her to join our allies in pressing for Taiwan’s inclusion.
Secondly, on the intimidation and threats facing Taiwan, I welcome the Government’s commitment to standing up for our allies that have a relationship with Taiwan—Lithuania was mentioned. There is a wider issue, however, of Chinese Government aggression aimed at Taiwan and its international relationships. Will the Minister outline the UK’s continued commitment to stand by our allies and protect their trading relationships with Taiwan?
Thirdly, as I have already highlighted, there is Taiwan’s status as a thriving high-tech economy. As the hon. Member for Midlothian commented, much of this somehow links in with Scotland, which is lovely to see: we have heard a lot about whisky but there are also wind farms and other things. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to deepen and strengthen these mutually beneficial economic ties? I put on record our support for the Government’s continued desire to link trade with democracy and freedom, which is much more straightforward because we do not have to have difficult conversations about human rights issues.
Finally, will the Minister outline what positive steps are being taken to reaffirm and expand the welcome person-to-person links we have with Taiwan in education, science and business? For example, is the Turing scheme, the Government’s new post-Brexit education push, enjoying much linkage there? Within the strategy that the Government no doubt have, is there a link with Taiwanese universities and education, because clearly education plays a key role in reaffirming our friendship?
Today we have a strong chance to put on record that we stand in friendship with Taiwanese people. Many across the House have visited and have friends there, but even without having visited we can stand on the principle of friendship and an ongoing relationship with a fellow democracy.

Amanda Milling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing this debate on UK co-operation with Taiwan. I thank Members from across the House for their insightful contributions. I will do my best to cover as many of the points raised as possible, because it really has been a lengthy and wide-ranging debate.
Members of the House will be aware of the unique nature of the UK’s relationship with Taiwan. We are not represented by an embassy in Taiwan but rather by a British office. Our team there drive forward our unofficial but undoubtedly important relationship with Taiwan. As we have heard, our relations are built on an increasingly wide range of shared economic, scientific and educational interests, and a shared consideration of global challenges around climate and health.
I start by addressing up front the increased tensions in the Taiwan strait, which a number of Members rightly raised. We have seen the significant impact of China’s military modernisation and growing assertiveness across the Indo-Pacific region. The UK has a clear interest in ensuring peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. Without it, the prosperity and security interests of both the UK and our like-minded partners would surely suffer. It is in this context that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have expressed their concerns at the numerous Chinese military flights that have taken place near Taiwan in recent days and months. These flights are not conducive to regional peace. We need a peaceful resolution to the tensions through a constructive dialogue by people on both sides of the strait. We will continue to work with our international partners on this issue. The G7 Foreign and Development communiqué last May underscored the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan strait. Ministers undertook to encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues. We will continue to prioritise peace and stability in our discussions.
Many Members rightly mentioned trade. Another of our priorities is our trade relationship with Taiwan, which, as many pointed out, is thriving. UK exports to Taiwan rose by 86% between 2016 and 2019. Even last year, as the pandemic took hold, our exports to Taiwan increased by a further quarter. Let me reassure Members that we want to continue to develop that economic relationship, and the Department for International Trade holds annual ministerial trade talks with Taiwan to do just that. The most recent talks were held in October 2021, co-chaired by the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). Those talks deepened the UK’s and Taiwan’s economic and commercial partnerships across a range of areas, and saw progress on market access ambitions including energy and offshore wind power, financial services, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and—I must of course mention this—whisky. Taiwan is the fourth largest market for Scottish whisky by value.
The UK and Taiwan are also partners on climate action. We are increasingly sharing expertise on floating offshore wind and multi-use port development. We also collaborate on skills and workforce planning for the renewable energy sector. UK businesses support Taiwan’s ambition to increase its proportion of renewable energy to 20% by 2025. More than 30 UK offshore wind companies have set up operations in Taiwan. The third UK-Taiwan energy dialogue last year promoted our expertise in decarbonisation and offshore wind, and agreed new areas of co-operation including Taiwan’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050. The dialogue made progress on market access issues affecting UK companies, and our offshore renewable energy Catapult signed a memorandum of understanding with Taiwan’s top research institute to help new partnerships in energy innovation.
Members mentioned education. Taiwan has set out plans to become a bilingual society in Mandarin and English by 2030. The UK, through the British Council, is a natural partner to help advance English language education, teaching and assessment.
Many touched on support for Taiwan on the international stage. Beyond our UK-Taiwan co-operation, we think it important for the international community to benefit from Taiwanese expertise in a range of areas. We are therefore working with partners to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite, and as an observer or guest where it is. We have worked hard with partners across a range of multilateral organisations to secure meaningful access for Taiwan, in a manner that is consistent with its status, and will continue to make the case in future. For example, at the 2021 World Health Assembly we named Taiwan in the UK’s national speech for the first time, and made the case, alongside like-minded countries, that Taiwan’s inclusion benefits global health. That includes its meaningful participation in ongoing technical meetings and allowing its health experts to access and participate in relevant facilities and virtual formats, as well as information exchange platforms.
As Members have pointed out, we need to learn from Taiwan’s leading example in tackling covid-19. It has rightly won the world’s admiration for its assured response, honed from its experience of SARS and using innovative technology to keep the virus at bay. We have facilitated expert-level dialogues between UK health experts and the Taiwan Centres for Disease Control, and we will continue to take forward plans this year for a UK-Taiwan expert health dialogue.
Members will be aware that Taiwan produces most of the high-performance semiconductors that drive our digital economy. It has a critical role in the technology supply chains that underpin global markets and invests heavily in research and innovation. We want our flourishing co-operation with Taiwan on science and technology to continue.
On semiconductor co-operation, the UK’s Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult signed a memorandum of understanding in 2020 with Taiwan’s largest applied research institute, the Industrial Technology Research Institute. The MOU provides a platform for co-operation on advanced chips.
Taiwan’s MediaTek, the world’s largest smartphone chip designer has recently expanded its research centres in Cambridge and London. We are keen to build on  that co-operation and a project is currently under way through which the UK and Taiwan can scope out new opportunities in the sector.
I am conscious of the time and wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton the opportunity to respond to the debate, so let me conclude. Although the UK’s long-standing position on Taiwan has not changed, we are proud of our relationship. I reassure the House that we will continue to advocate for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations for which statehood is not a prerequisite. Enduring peace and stability in the Taiwan strait is not just in the UK interest but a matter of global concern, so we will continue to work with our international partners to discourage any activity that undermines the status quo.

Alicia Kearns: I thank the Minister for responding to the debate. Above all, I thank every Member who has taken the time to contribute to this important discussion. There is unity throughout the House in respect of our commitment to and friendship with the people of Taiwan, whether from our legal eagles, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill); from our great gallant gentlemen, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); from our foremost foreign policy expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat); or from great whisky drinkers and human rights advocates, such as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson).
Most of all, there is a clarity of asks and a clarity of purpose in the House. I hope the Minister can go back to the Department and go through the specific, meaningful and tangible asks to see what more can be done. Yes, there is friendship, there is opportunity and there are shared threats, but today Parliament has spoken with one voice, in the fantastic presence of Ambassador Kelly, to whom we are all grateful for his friendship and work. I again thank everyone who came to the debate, because we have made it clear today that Britain stands firmly behind our ally and firmly behind our good friends the people of Taiwan.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the importance of the UK’s relationship with Taiwan; calls on the Government to continue to work towards the strengthening of the UK-Taiwan trade relationship and deepening of security cooperation; and further calls on the Government to support Taiwan’s recognition in the international community.

Dementia Research in the UK

Debbie Abrahams: I beg to move,
That this House has considered dementia research in the UK.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, of which I am the co-chair with the wonderful Baroness Sally Greengross, and the Alzheimer’s Society for all its work to support the APPG. I also thank the many Members who agreed to sponsor the debate, although being just before recess it is obviously a difficult slot to fill.
Dementia is one of the biggest health challenges that we face today. It is the UK’s biggest killer and, with an ever-aging population, the number of people living with dementia in the UK and around the world is set to grow. Indeed, figures from the Alzheimer’s Society show that around 900,000 people are currently living with the condition in the UK, and that number is set to grow to 1.3 million by 2030. There will be few of us who do not know somebody who is either living with dementia or affected by it.
That includes me. My mum was 64 when she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and unfortunately she died 10 years later. The work I do on the APPG is in her memory, and in recognition that there are millions of families affected by dementia and who are currently caring for people they love who have one of the many degenerative brain diseases that cause dementia. We frequently talk about dementia as though it was just one disease, but it is not. Dementia is a set of symptoms, but there is an array of degenerative brain diseases that make up dementia, of which Alzheimer’s disease is probably the best known.

Rupa Huq: My hon. Friend talks movingly about her mum. My mum also had frontotemporal dementia as the cause on her death certificate in 2017, 10 days before polling day—thanks, mum! Towards the end they have a mixture of intransigence, stubbornness, regression and paranoia. A minibus from Ealing Council used to come and take her to a memory clinic in Acton, but it was largely old chaps playing dominoes, and that was not really her scene. She loved entertaining, and it was so sad that someone who used to cook for so many forgot how to swallow by the end. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as the shocking “moonshot” that we were promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has never happened, research should look at culturally and gender-appropriate solutions to this awful disease? As she says, so many of us know people who are afflicted by it.

Debbie Abrahams: I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point about her own experience with her mum’s frontotemporal dementia and the importance of ensuring that we understand, from different cultural perspectives and different ethnicities, the impact of dementia and how we care for our loved ones who have it.
I want this debate to be about hope. That is so important. My hon. Friend has just spoken about her mum, and it was very hard for my mum. She could not  speak and could barely move. She could not feed herself. It was a very sad state. However, there is huge optimism and reasons for hope, and that is what I want this debate to be about. I firmly believe that, as with many other conditions, research will find a cure for dementia.
We have one of the best life sciences sectors in the world, as we have seen over the past few years with the work that the University of Oxford and others have undertaken with the covid vaccination programme. Our researchers are rarely talked about, but they are our unsung heroes and we should be immensely proud of the work they do and the significant contribution they make to the economy. I believe it is a matter of when, not if, we will see the breakthroughs that are desperately needed for therapies in dementia research.
However, that is fundamentally dependent on adequate investment. Despite the ever-increasing prevalence of dementia, research into it is consistently and disproportionately underfunded. There is news from the United States of treatments such as aducanumab, which has just been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is expected to help people when they are diagnosed with dementia. This is a great and exciting opportunity for the Government to support the field and cement the UK’s place as a world leader in dementia research.
As my hon. Friend has just mentioned, we know that during the 2019 general election the Conservative party promised to double dementia research funding from £83 million to £166 million a year over a 10-year period—the “dementia moonshot”. Similarly, the Labour party has committed to that. We have cross-party consensus, but we are still waiting for the Government to bring forward any of that additional funding. Last year, in fact, there was a 10% fall in the amount of funding provided to dementia research, so it received only £75 million instead of £83 million. That is a huge missed opportunity to expand our research capabilities in that area, to support the inspiring academics working in the field and to provide hope to the millions of people affected by dementia across the UK. It also does not make economic sense, as I will move on to later.

John Nicolson: My mum died of dementia at the start of the covid outbreak. She formed a great attachment to Madam Deputy Speaker, of whom she was very fond, and Madam Deputy Speaker was very fond of her. Her name was Marion. She went from being a sparkling presence to somebody who, at the start of the pandemic, was locked in for her own protection and I was not able to go and see her. I had never before understood the whole idea of somebody turning their face to the wall, but she just stopped eating and drinking, and within a week, she was dead. I hope that when the story of the pandemic is written, we will remember all those people who died because of it and who will never be recorded as having died of covid. They died through loneliness, which is so important for us all to remember.

Eleanor Laing: Order. May I interrupt to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that his mother was a sparkling presence and a lovely lady? I was very fond of her and it is tragic that he has lost her. We all feel it very deeply with him.

Debbie Abrahams: I similarly add my sincere condolences to the hon. Member. I could not agree more with his sentiments. It does affect everybody and it is moving to hear how different hon. Members have been affected by their loved ones. I want to provide hope as well, and I hope that what I go on to say will provide a bit of comfort to him. We must do more on it, though, must we not?
The Government have said that we can expect to see their plans on dementia research in the national dementia strategy. I am grateful to see the Minister in his place, because we have worked together on dementia in the past and I know that he feels as passionately about it as I do. Given that there has been a real hiatus from the manifesto in 2019 to where we are now, and that we have actually slipped backwards, I would be grateful if he could commit to discussions with the Treasury about an announcement in the spring statement next month. That is way overdue and we must provide hope to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the success of previous Governments in the last 15 years. We had our first dementia strategy in 2009. My right hon. Friend, now the Mayor of Greater Manchester, was the author of that fine strategy. We must also pay tribute to the former Prime Minister David Cameron for his work on it. He managed to increase dementia research from just over £28 million to £82 million during his incumbency. Government-led initiatives, such as his challenge on dementia, establishing the UK Dementia Research Institute, and leading the world during our 2014 G8 presidency by hosting the world’s first dementia summit, put us on a good footing to lead the world in this field. We need to build on that, but as I say I fear we are slipping backwards.
I mentioned the importance and urgency of fulfilling that commitment, but I also want to stress the economic argument. We heard last week, in the Government’s levelling-up White Paper, about the huge potential economic benefits of investing in research and development, particularly in the life sciences. Our life sciences sector in the north-west, spanning from Liverpool all the way to Hull, has magnificent research institutes and organisations. We know that extra Government investment acts as a catalyst to unlock private funding. A study conducted by Oxford Economics in 2020 found that each £1 of public money—Government money—is at least doubled. If we look at what that would mean for dementia research, a moonshot investment of £800 million over the next decade could unlock £1.6 billion to £1.8 billion of additional private investment. This is an answer to the levelling-up issue to which the Government have said they are committed. I urge them. This is a source of addressing some of the issues they are facing on that particular policy promise.
It was because of the lack of Government movement on the issue that last year the all-party parliamentary group decided to undertake a dementia research inquiry. As well as making the case for the moonshot, the resulting report, “Fuelling the Moonshot”—do look at it on the Alzheimer’s Society website—set out how the money could be best used to support the sector. Throughout the inquiry, we sought to look at the entire dementia research system. It is important to recognise that, when we talk about dementia research, we do not just mean exploring for cures and treatments, although that is   obviously vital; it is also about researching diagnostic methods, how dementia can be prevented and exploring how people with dementia can best be cared for.
Over the course of the inquiry, we took written and oral evidence from hundreds of people living with and affected by dementia, academics, charities, research institutes and research participants. I thank everybody who took part. We could not have produced the quality report we did without their input. They ranged from Exeter, where researchers are investigating how we can improve the quality of life for people with dementia, to Edinburgh, where leading academics are researching the links between dementia and head traumas in sport. What we found was a rich, diverse and passionate set of people working tirelessly to improve the lives of people with dementia and their families, but they need our support and they need Government support.

James Sunderland: I was not going to speak today because of a clash with a Bill Committee, but I have been asked by several constituents to come in to listen to the debate. The hon. Lady is putting forward a persuasive case. I want briefly to pay tribute to the hidden army of carers across the UK: the current estimate is that there are about 6.5 million of them. They are perhaps saving the Treasury over £100 billion in lost wages. Does she agree that we should do more to increase carer’s allowance and to formally recognise those very selfless and diligent people?

Debbie Abrahams: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am very grateful to him for coming here. I agree totally with the points he has made to acknowledge the army of family carers who support people living with dementia and the fact that they are supported by a pittance. We need to do much, much more in that regard.
I was coming on to talk about the importance of the work of charities such as Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society. About half of all the research undertaken is as a result of the funding raised by the Alzheimer’s Society. As many would expect, like other charitable sectors, medical research charities were hit particularly hard as a result of the pandemic. The Association of Medical Research Charities estimated that the pandemic has caused a shortfall of UK medical research investment of at least £310 million. That huge loss of income has of course impacted on funding decisions for these charities. The Alzheimer’s Society had planned to fund two research calls last year, but it was unable to do so because of its financial situation. The same thing was felt across the entire research community. An Alzheimer’s Society survey found that 85% of researchers reported that the pandemic had led to fewer funding opportunities being available for them.
Similarly, like those in nearly every UK sector, dementia researchers have been hard hit by the effects of the pandemic. For many, lockdowns meant that their labs had to close and participants could no longer take in part in trials. I spoke to a researcher in Manchester who had spent months growing brain cells for her research, only for them to have to be thrown away—months of work wasted. The pandemic also had an impact on the work of researchers who worked outside labs. For example, it affected those working in areas that require face-to-face contact with participants—including people with dementia—such as drug, clinical and care intervention trials.
Understandably, many clinical staff were redeployed to work in the frontline NHS throughout the pandemic, and that heavily impacted on the progress of dementia research. An Alzheimer’s Society survey from April 2021 found that almost a quarter of its funded researchers said that they or another team member had been redeployed in the NHS or in frontline services during the pandemic. We know that much of the clinical research that is undertaken depends on the effective clinical running of routine NHS dementia services, and many of those were seriously affected during covid.
One area I was particularly concerned to hear about during the inquiry was the impact of the pandemic on early career researchers. These are researchers who are at the PhD or post-doctoral stage of their careers. For many of them, much of their time and focus is taken up with concerns about where their funding will come from, or whether they will be able to progress any further. One researcher told the all-party group that
“typical…contracts go on for 3 years, and you have to spend a lot of your time in year 3 applying for your next tranche of funding—affecting your productivity.”
She went on to say that
“instead of concentrating on research, academics are having to worry about their mortgage.”
Of course, that has only been exacerbated by the pandemic.
There was a concern that having to suffer a break in their research left today’s early career researchers uncompetitive in the job market. There is a fear among those researchers that, when they apply for funding for the next stage of their career, they will not be looked on as favourably as others. In May 2021, the Government announced a fund of £20 million to support those charity-funded ECRs. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his closing remarks, responded to the recommendation that we made in our inquiry report on how we can further support these important researchers, without whom we will not see the next breakthroughs. They are absolutely vital and should not be overlooked.
Throughout my time as co-chair of the all-party group, and particularly during the inquiry, I have been lucky enough to hear at first hand from people living with dementia, and from their families. During the inquiry, I spoke to inspiring people who live with dementia or who have cared for people with dementia, and who gave up their time to participate in dementia research. I was struck by the sense of empowerment that this gave them. They know that the activities that they are undertaking may not help them directly, but they recognise that the research may support better care, treatments and even a cure for someone in the future.
To ensure that the UK is a world leader in dementia research, we must be able to attract participants to take part in trials. As one research participant put it:
“Too often research feels something that is just done to someone, rather than something that people can be a part of.”
People often do not know how they can be involved in dementia research. I want to draw everyone’s attention to Join Dementia Research UK. I encourage everyone, including hon. and right hon. Members, to sign up to it. It can link them up to research projects happening across the UK, and that is how we will help to make progress. The service is currently trialling writing to people with dementia after their diagnosis to invite them to participate in research. I would be grateful if  the Minister said a little bit about how his Department could support Join Dementia Research UK with its pilot and help to roll it out.
Former England rugby union player Ben Kay is one such research participant who has also taken part in our inquiry. He has spoken quite openly about how important it is for him to be involved in the Alzheimer’s Society’s funded research programme that investigates the links between rugby and dementia. I am sure many Members here will be familiar with this not just in rugby, but in football. Nobby Stiles springs to mind, but we also know that Bobby Charlton, a particular hero of mine, has been affected. We need to understand head trauma in all forms of sport: not just those that use the different shaped balls that boys in particular play on football and rugby fields, but other sports as well. That issue, the Minister will know, has been of growing interest, particularly in the media. Again I would be grateful if he said how, with his cross-departmental work, he has been able to support this. Extra funding through the moonshot could really expand our knowledge of that area, so we can ensure that everybody can participate in sport safely. It is also important to ensure that people understand the risks and what steps they can take to minimise them, which is another area of research being undertaken.
One of the most exciting areas in dementia research at the moment is diagnosis. There is a real prospect that very soon we could see blood biomarker tests readily available to help to ensure people receive not just an accurate, but an early diagnosis, and I am talking many decades before we actually see the physical, behavioural and cognitive symptoms that we are familiar with in dementia. These can be cheap and easy to administer, much like the countless other blood tests that happen day in, day out. Again, I would be very grateful if the Minister responded on how we can make sure that, as those come on line, we can make them readily available.
Before I close my remarks, I would like to highlight some of the excellent research already taking place in the UK, particularly through the UK Dementia Research Institute. Set up 2017, this is the biggest investment the UK has ever made in dementia, thanks to the £290 million donation from founding funders the Medical Research Council, the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. I met the director of the institute during the inquiry and heard of the important work that it is doing.
The UKDRI has over 650 researchers working towards treatments and technologies to improve the lives of people living with dementia, with sites across all parts of the UK, including London, Cardiff and Edinburgh. The director, Professor Bart De Strooper, estimated that about a third of his researchers had been attracted to the UK from other parts of the world because of its infrastructure and research capabilities. That shows what a leading role the UK can be proud to play in this area—a world leader. With the Government funding for UKDRI running up to 2023, at which point progress will be reviewed, it is important that this vital asset in the UK’s dementia research system is supported to continue its work. We are only a year away from that, so I hope the Minister is able to say more about that.
There is also great research happening across the UK in the area of care research. We heard from Professor Dame Louise Robinson, who leads an Alzheimer’s Society-funded centre of excellence in Newcastle University. These centres of excellence, which also have sites in Exeter and London, bring together leading researchers  to investigate how people with dementia can best be cared for. I am conscious of the interventions that hon. Members made earlier. That research is valuable to those people who currently have dementia in looking at how we can make sure they are properly cared for.
What is concerning is that, although there is a plethora of evidence of how effective care research is, it is not being used. In contrast to the principle of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based care, it is not actually being used, which is staggering. Again, I would be very grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on that. Can I just mention this figure? In a review of 170 training manuals for person-centred care in dementia, researchers found that just four—four—provided evidence about what methods worked when tested in a research setting. That is what we are using to train our carers. There is an evidence base, yet it is not being used to underpin that training. We need to do much better on that.
The UK has come a long way in improving our dementia research sector, but it is imperative that we build on that. People living with dementia and their families deserve to see the Government delivering on their general election commitment to dementia moonshot funding and leadership in dementia research such as we saw with the covid vaccine development. I urge the Minister to liaise with the Treasury in the run-up to the spring statement next month and to deliver for the dementia research community and for the country. We can be a world leader in the field, but that will need the Government to fulfil their commitments.

Bob Stewart: I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for a first-class introduction to the debate. Dementia is an awfully debilitating condition. We all have many constituents who have asked us to pay attention to it and to attend the debate. I have been asked to speak and consider it a duty to do so.
My mother died while suffering from dementia. It was horrid to see a dynamic, wonderful person reduced so greatly that she did not even recognise my sister, who had cared for her. I totally sympathise with the description given by my friend the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) of what happened to his mother. My mother was lonely, she was lost, and it was terrible—a terrible end for her.
As we have heard, the UK has 850,000 dementia sufferers, and it gets so much worse once we are beyond 65. I reckon that roughly one in 70 of the population have dementia. One thing that really strikes me about dementia—it is a vivid image—is how often dementia sufferers are so frightened. I gather—I have not seen it—that they are particularly frightened when they walk into a room with a dark carpet or mat on the floor. They shrink back, because they think it is a hole that would devour them.
I pay tribute to the people who look after those suffering with dementia. That is not just formal carers; it is normally the family. Everyone who has experience of dementia sufferers knows that those carers do so much for those people whom they love, yet they do not get recognition for it. They are looking after someone whom they care about but get no response. It is really  difficult. It asks one hell of a lot of people to keep doing it, but, my goodness, they do, often for no money whatsoever; it is simply because of love and what the person was before.
I am pleased to have been briefed by the Alzheimer’s Society, and I am now what it calls a dementia friend. May I urge all colleagues to take the Alzheimer’s Society’s “Dementia Friends” course? I did it in my office. It takes about half an hour. People come and explain about dementia. We may all think we know it, but let people come and talk about it. Then, the more of us who know what it is like and can talk about it, the more of us who can influence Government and the more we can help those poor devils who suffer from dementia and those people who, by extension, are affected so deeply by dementia because they have to look after dementia sufferers.

Lilian Greenwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing and leading today’s important debate, and I have enjoyed all the contributions. I thank her for the work of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, which she co-chairs, and the excellent report it published last year on dementia research. The report rightly sets out the need for the Government to honour their commitment and bring forward the dementia moonshot funding as soon as possible. The report also sets out some of the key challenges the sector is facing and where that additional funding could be best used. I know that the Government are currently working on a new national dementia strategy, and I hope that the Minister will use the APPG’s report in its development.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend in her opening contribution: dementia is one of the biggest health challenges facing us today. There are currently 900,000 people in the UK living with dementia. In my city, there are already around 2,690 people living with dementia, and that figure is expected to grow to more than 3,800 by 2030. It is one of the consequences of our ageing population. Dementia does not just affect those who have the condition; it also has a profound impact on family, carers and loved ones. Many, if not all of us know someone who is facing the challenges of living with dementia, and we owe it to them and their families to do what we can to make life that bit easier in the future.
As we all know, there is currently no cure for dementia. Finding a cure must be a key aim, but it is not the only one; we must also invest in research to explore how people with dementia can best be treated and cared for. Dementia is a progressive condition, with the symptoms likely to get worse over time. That has severe implications for family members providing care. I take this opportunity to highlight the work of the Centre for Dementia at the University of Nottingham, based in the Institute of Mental Health. It is addressing precisely that issue. The centre’s mission is to improve the lives of people with dementia and their carers through high-quality, useful research, looking at how people with dementia spend their time and what can help them to get the maximum quality from life.
The University of Nottingham is an excellent example of what can be achieved when there is investment in research, and I know from the Alzheimer’s Society, and from what my hon. Friend said, that there are similar  programmes in Exeter and Newcastle. She highlighted their centres of excellence. I hope that the Government will work closely with the charitable funders of dementia research and look to replicate those best practice examples. That is very important for improving healthcare, but that investment in research and development, particularly when it is targeted outside of London, can provide real benefits to places such as Nottingham.
Since the pandemic began, we have seen what can be achieved by our life sciences sector when it has the funding, the leadership and the clarity of purpose it needs. The huge advances we have seen in the last decade around dementia research—whether that is the creation of world-leading research institutions, such as the UK Dementia Research Institute, or the vast increase in the number of people attracted to the UK to do dementia research—have all come about because of increased targeted funding and a national strategy to bring together charities, academics and private investors. It is worrying that the state of the UK’s dementia research sector is now at risk. To be honest, it is deeply disappointing that the Government, two years on from their initial promise of a moonshot, have not yet brought forward the funding. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will set out a timetable for when that will be delivered and confirm that the new strategy will be ambitious about what can be achieved.
One point that really struck me when reading my hon. Friend’s report was the impact of the pandemic and the lack of secure funding on researchers. It is clear from the report and researchers’ testimonies that for many of them this is not just a job but a vocation. Not only are they passionate about science, but many also have a personal link to dementia. Their motivation is to find a cure or treatment, or to improve the lives of people living with dementia, but even before the effects of the pandemic, which shut down many labs and prevented people from properly carrying out their work, it is clear that there was a career bottleneck, causing many researchers to leave the field.
There is no shortage of talent among dementia researchers in the UK, but there is a leaky pipeline. New cohorts of doctoral students are often encouraged to enter dementia research without the funding in place to ensure that they can continue and progress into post-doctoral research. Will the Minister tell us what is being done in the upcoming strategy to address that pipeline—to ensure that our talented researchers do not have to move abroad to continue their work or, worse still, leave the field altogether? I know that the Government gave £20 million last year to support charity-funded researchers, but that is far from what was promised; they must do more.
How can we ensure that more people with dementia and their carers can participate in research? As part of the 2020 dementia challenge, the Government set out an ambition for 25% of people living with dementia to be registered with Join Dementia Research, which my hon. Friend mentioned. However, just 2% of people living with dementia in England have registered on the site, despite the policy being written into NHS commissioning guidance and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Attracting the world’s best researchers and private investment relies on us as a country being able to show that we can get the right number and right type of participants taking part in  research, so what are the Government doing to encourage and enable that? Of course, it is about not just the benefit to the academic research, but the benefit to participants themselves; the report details how being involved in research can provide a sense of empowerment.
My final point today is about prevention. We simply are not doing enough to communicate to the public what every one of us can do to prevent dementia—reducing our risk by keeping ourselves healthy. One of the key slogans about brain health is “healthy heart, healthy brain.” Cardiovascular problems all increase the risk of memory loss, thinking problems and dementia, but it is never too late in life to reduce those risks.
There are 12 modifiable risk factors for dementia, including smoking, alcohol consumption, exposure to pollution and traumatic brain injury. Cutting out or reducing those risk factors can reduce the likelihood of developing dementia, but despite clear research in this area, Alzheimer’s Research UK’s 2018 dementia attitudes monitor showed that just 34% of people thought that they could reduce their risk of developing dementia—far behind the equivalent figures for conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which were 81% and 77% respectively. If people do not believe that they can do something about it, they will clearly not take the actions that they could. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to improve the health information provided to the public? Will that form part of the new national dementia strategy?
In conclusion, it is obvious that we have a wonderful, rich and diverse dementia research sector in the UK. We have passionate, dedicated academics who work tirelessly to improve the life of people with dementia, and of their families and carers. We have clearly come a long way. We have built terrific infrastructure, and have world-leading facilities, but just as dementia does not stop progressing, neither should we. We have to build on this, particularly given the impact that the pandemic has had on the field. We must offer opportunities and support to academics. If we do not, we are at risk of wasting all the great work done over the past decade. We must not allow that to happen, particularly when there are new, exciting developments that will drastically improve the life of people with dementia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said, we have to provide hope. The Government must bring forward a plan for delivering the moonshot funding as soon as possible. I look forward to the Minister giving us some hope when he responds.

Huw Merriman: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I join her in thanking the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing the debate, and for all her work as joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia.
It is real pleasure to contribute to the debate on dementia research in the UK. As the hon. Member for Nottingham South said, Dementia affects around 944,000 people in the UK, which is 1.33% of the population, and also takes them away from us, sometimes too early. It was the leading cause of death in December 2021, when dementia and Alzheimer’s accounted for 12.4% of all deaths. In 2021, when we were rightly fixated on  covid and its impact, covid accounted for 5.4% of deaths. Frankly, we do not talk enough about dementia and what it does. Perhaps if we talked more about the impacts, people might join us in pressing for more change. As the hon. Member said, funding for research is relatively low. Cancer attracts three times as much, despite the statistics I have just given.
All that matters very much to me as MP for Bexhill and Battle, because there are 2,413 people in the constituency living with dementia. That is 2.34% of all my constituents. Of our 650 constituencies, mine has the second highest number of constituents living with dementia. I thank everyone, both in my constituency and across the country, who cares for those living with dementia, and I send my best wishes to all those who have dementia. I want to press for more, so that we get a better deal for those with dementia, and for those who are so selfless and give so much in looking after them, whether they are doing so through their employment or because the person they are looking after is a loved one.
On local interaction, I am very lucky, because we have built up a good deal of expertise through our links in East Sussex. My office team have been trained as dementia friends, thanks to the Alzheimer’s Society. That has helped me to engage a lot better with constituents who face personal challenges. When I was first elected in 2015, I went to a specialist dementia care home in Heathfield. We MPs do not get training for that type of thing—or for many other things—so I asked the matron running the unit, “How do I deal with it when something occurs?” Her advice was: “Just go into the same world as them. Don’t be embarrassed; just go there and be part of it.” I have remembered that advice and followed it ever since. We have ended up doing some very funny things, but I have never once felt silly; I felt as though I was engaging and having fun, and that has stayed with me.
I am really lucky with all our care homes and specialist units. I absolutely love to watch young children come from the schools to read to those in the care homes. Of course, some residents have difficulties with their short-term memory, but some of them have an extraordinary long-term memory. I remember one lady in Battle who did not contribute, but then stood up and recited, without a flaw, “I wandered lonely as a cloud”. It was an incredibly moving moment. The children were shocked, and I will always remember it.
Next week, I will visit a local charity, Young at Heart, where there is a lovely connection between young people from schools and preschools, and those who are older.

John Nicolson: I myself remember starting to dance with an old lady, and the dance was endless. It was one ballroom dance, then another, a third and a fourth. Finally, the care home attendant had to come and take me away, and he said, “She is a former professional dancer. She will dance with you all afternoon, unless we stop.” Is there a problem that people are scared of folk with dementia? Should we be teaching dementia awareness, which the hon. Gentleman raised, at schools?

Huw Merriman: The hon. Member is absolutely right. I feel that a lot of us are scared. Actually, a lot of hon. Members are perhaps scared that they are making a fool of themselves, but they are not. They are making  their constituents happy that they are there with them. I have done something very similar to the hon. Gentleman. It is right to teach young people about dementia in schools and almost require every single school to have that partnership, to encourage young people to feel as if they can let go. It is an excellent suggestion. I hope the Minister heard it and will take it into account.
We are fortunate to have local pioneers. Mention has been made of ensuring that people get tested, because early intervention can help a great deal. A year or so ago, I visited a pioneering local memory assessment service based in Bexhill, which supports patients with dementia across both my constituency and the wider East Sussex coast. Dr Stephen French, who leads the memory assessment service, is a GP, which makes the service quite novel. I took part in a memory assessment test and went all the way through it myself, to see exactly what those who participate have to undertake and how difficult it is.
The service has been running for seven years and has proved successful with local residents. What is great about it is that it is a community-based dementia service, so anyone presenting with a memory problem will be seen by their local GP in the first instance. After they have gone through other causes of memory loss, such as depression or circulatory disease, they will be referred to a local dementia specialist for a full assessment, at a GP close to their home. So, they could be having that difficult test with their own GP. That means that those who are already worried about memory loss are able to go into setting with which they are more familiar. It is less intimidating than going to a hospital or mental health hospital, which is where such tests sometimes take place. Unsurprisingly, it means more people will take up the offer and attend the test. That is hugely important for a constituency such as mine, where there are so many people who are impacted.
When the test is positive, that comes as a great shock to both the individual and their family, but with this particular service, two weeks after diagnosis patients receive a visit from a local dementia support worker to see how they are getting on and to discuss the range of support services available to them. Then there is aftercare, followed up by a medical review to see how the patient is coping and to assess the effectiveness of any medication. Their pathway then comes back into their own GP service, so it becomes one of the conditions that they are being treated for.
As well as talking about research, which I will go on to mention, I feel that we have to encourage early diagnosis in a local setting, and we have to take away the stigma of it. That comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) around interacting. There is also a stigma about going to have the tests. I would encourage any colleague of mine to go and have the test, in the same way that I have. It is incredibly insightful.
Let me return to the main thrust of this debate, which is about research. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth that this debate should be about hope. I agree with her that research will find that cure, and I agree with her that it is a case of “when”, not “if”, but I also agree with her that it requires continued funding of the amazing life science and research sector with which we are blessed in this country. I particularly note the UK Dementia Research Institute, which was set up in 2017. Its main hub is at  University College London, but there are six other centres across the UK, funded by the Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. It will be doing the job to deliver the moonshot cure that the hon. Member talked about, but it will require a good chunk of the £5 billion committed in the 2021 spending review to go into research on dementia.
I am encouraged by the Government’s track record. In the five-year plan in 2015, the Challenge on Dementia, there was a commitment to spend £300 million by March 2020. In fact that amount was spent by March 2019, and it was £344 million. So the track record is there, but there were some bold pledges in my own 2019 manifesto on what we would do as a party to help deliver that cure for dementia. Let me say to the Minister—I know that he cares deeply about this issue—that if he needs any help at all in trying to strong-arm as much of that budget as possible towards dementia, he will always have a friend in me.
It has been a pleasure to speak in the debate. This is an issue that affects so many of my constituents—so many wonderful people who care or who suffer. I am delighted that we have secured the debate, and have raised the flag for them.

Margaret Ferrier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing today’s debate and on her continued work on this issue, which I know is appreciated by many throughout the House and beyond. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman); I enjoyed listening to the stories of his visits.
Dementia has a lasting impact on those who develop it and on their loved ones. While the patient begins to develop symptoms, maybe slowly at first, it may be frightening—memory loss, a struggle to communicate, mood swings, and a change in personality for reasons the person does not understand. Over the course of our lives we get to know ourselves very well, and losing that sense of self is incredibly sad. The impact on carers and family members must not be underestimated either. Depending on the level of severity, caring for someone with dementia can be a full-time 24/7 job, and that can be exhausting. A common feeling among carers is guilt—guilt that perhaps they cannot keep up; guilt that sometimes they resent their newly found role. It is human nature to be hard on ourselves.
About 90,000 people in Scotland are currently living with dementia, and that number is expected to increase to at least 120,000 over the next 20 years. The condition is prevalent, and numbers are rising. It is estimated that in the UK one in three people born this year will develop a form of dementia later in life. In South Lanarkshire, where my constituency sits, dementia is the leading cause of death for women, accounting for 16.2% of female deaths. That is a sobering statistic. Globally, there are now more people living with dementia than with cancer, which is why research on treatment, or a cure, is so important. There is still no effective treatment. We can see how investment in research has allowed scientists to make unprecedented breakthroughs in respect of cancer, for example: sustained funding for cancer research allowed scientists to understand it better,  turning what was, at one point, seen as a death sentence into a chronic but manageable disease. However, the human brain is complex, and that plays a big part in why dementia remains so poorly understood. Research has historically suffered from under-investment, and sustained investment is vital if breakthroughs are to be made.
Let me draw another comparison with cancer research. There have been 74,000 cancer-related clinical trials since 2000, but fewer than 2,400 for Alzheimer’s. In the same timeframe, the Food and Drug Administration has approved 512 cancer drugs, but just six drugs for Alzheimer’s. The UK Government’s funding for cancer is almost three times higher than that for dementia. The pressure on the NHS cannot be ignored. More than one in four hospital beds are occupied by someone with dementia, and more than half of dementia patients will have at least one hospital admission each year.

Bob Stewart: It was the story from my friend, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), about his mother that twigged something in my memory. The real problem seems to be that the will to live disappears. People look normal, but they are just vacant. As an ex-soldier, having seen this with soldiers, I know that the will to live is crucial. When someone gives up the will to live, they are gone. We have to find a way of making sure that dementia sufferers keep the will to live because if that is vacant, it is gone. I think that is true but others might disagree.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for that intervention and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for his story about his lovely mother—a really sparkling lady, who I remember seeing pictures of. It is very sad when people give up the will to live.
One in five hospital admissions are for potentially preventable reasons, such as a fall, infection or psychiatric difficulties. It is not all bleak though. There have been developments and we understand the disease better now than we did just a few years ago. New research from University College London and the University of Paris, published in The BMJ in December, found that those with two or more chronic health problems in middle age are more than twice as likely to develop dementia. That research was based on a long-term clinical trial showing how progress can be made if the resources are available.
I would like to mention the Glasgow Brain Injury Research Group based in the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. The group looks at traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs, and the impact that they have on patients exposed to varying levels of severity of injury. It is pursuing an interesting workstream on the link between repetitive mild TBIs, incurred through sport such as football and rugby, and the increased risk of dementia. We all know of many famous footballers who have died from dementia, such as the great Billy McNeill. This is a fantastic piece of work and one of the many different research areas that could really deepen our understanding of how dementia occurs and develops and of subsequent treatment methods.
The medical community remains hugely optimistic. A survey of researchers at the UK Dementia Research Institute found that 90% of them felt that new treatments  would be found within the next decade, and 72% held the opinion that the pace at which breakthroughs are being made is increasing. Vitally, though, 100% pressed the need for additional funding to allow breakthroughs to be made. They are the experts and we should listen.
Developments are already under way, but the key now is maintaining and accelerating the existing momentum. We have heard of the Join dementia research resource, which is piloting actively writing to all people with dementia after their diagnosis to invite them to participate in research. That would hugely benefit dementia research. In March 2021, Public Health Scotland revealed that less than half the people estimated to have had a new dementia diagnosis in 2018-19 were referred to vital post-diagnostic support. That outreach is essential. How will the Government support the JDR pilot and its roll-out across the four nations?
The lack of timely and accurate diagnosis is making it hard for current clinical trials to identify suitable candidates. The condition is severely underdiagnosed and the current backlog has only slowed things down even further. Transforming the current diagnostic process is pivotal. If diagnosis comes too late, we risk patients not being able to access treatments that might have helped to slow down its development.
The Government talk a lot about levelling up the UK, and I wonder whether that same attention could be given here. As part of the dementia strategy, the Government should invest in the development of multiple dementia clinical trial sites to form a network across the UK. Such a project would be in keeping with a true levelling-up agenda and make the UK an attractive centre for international life science investment. Better understanding of the disease leads to better support medically and emotionally. It will lessen the burdens on our frontline services. Early detection of the disease is crucial to allow patients to continue living independently and with dignity. That is one step that can be taken now. We need a stronger understanding among the general public about what to look out for and how to get help.
I wish to highlight the essential support provided by a number of charities for those with dementia and their support networks. They have also provided a wealth of knowledge to Members to support this debate, for which I am very grateful. Age Scotland, whose remit reaches much further, provides excellent support for older people in Scotland, as do Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and Alzheimer Scotland, among many others. Charitable funding has become harder to come by over the past two years, and the work of those organisations in the face of that is invaluable and impressive. Their working commitment is commendable. The UK is a leader in biomedical research. That is something to be proud of, and something we must harness. I look forward to the Minister setting out today how plans for dementia research will be included in a national dementia strategy.

Lyn Brown: One of my constituents, in asking me to attend today’s debate and talk about dementia, mentioned that they did not feel that dementia is a sexy enough subject to get the funding for research. It is almost as if it is expected that most of us, at the end of our lives, will not be as sharp tacks in  the box as we once were, and may therefore find it hard to attract the funding. Does the hon. Lady agree with my constituent?

Margaret Ferrier: I do not agree that people with dementia have nothing else to give to society. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle mentioned, they have some great memory recall, and it can be good to work along with young people from schools. It is essential that we have funding to continue that work and research into dementia because as I said earlier, more and more of us may succumb to that terrible illness. I look forward to the Minister setting out how plans for dementia research will be included in a national dementia strategy, and how the Government are supporting the development of essential new technologies in that space.

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate secured by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Indeed, I do not think she has secured any debate on dementia in either the Chamber or in Westminster Hall that I have not been at. That is first because I want to support her, but secondly because the subject matter is something that is real to me as a constituency MP, and to others who have told their stories in the Chamber. I find those stories incredibly moving because they illustrate, as personal stories always do, how complex this issue is. It is a pleasure to support the hon. Lady in this issue, which affects every corner of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Strangford is a very beautiful location with wonderful facilities and lovely people. Given that, we have a high number of older retirees, who moved there to enjoy the safety of our constituency. The natural follow-on from that is that we have a large number of people who are susceptible to dementia. Over the years, when one is probably at around my age, one notices people who one remembers from childhood but who are now getting older and have developed dementia. I have quite a few friends in that position—I am not better than anybody else, but I can fairly quickly see where the issues are and one notices the slip away.
For instance, my mother had a lady living next door. One day she came in to see her and afterwards I said, “Mum, I think that lady is just starting to have a wee bit of dementia or Alzheimer’s.” She said, “Are you sure?” and I said, “I’m not smarter than anybody else, but I think there’s the start of something there”, and unfortunately there was. We know that drugs and medication can delay the process by five or six years, stopping the slide. As a busy constituency MP, I deliver on these issues all the time, whether it be attendance allowance forms, benefits issues or just helping people, as I do by the day, by the hour and by the minute. Recent figures and statistics show, and this is scary, that just under a fifth of all dementia diagnoses in Northern Ireland are of residents in the local trust in my Strangford constituency. As a busy MP with very busy staff who deal with these issues every day, every week and every month, I see these things.
Of course, we understand that dementia is not limited to individuals. We must remember that dementia affects entire families. The right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned his mum, and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John  Nicolson) told a very personal story about his mum, too. We can all relate, as it affects entire families—children, grandchildren, sisters and brothers.
Dementia takes people away from us while they are still alive. Those words sum up the debate very well, as that is the impact of dementia and Alzheimer’s. People see the shell of their precious sister, who has forgotten her husband and who screams when he comes into the room, “Who is this man?” She does not recognise him, but they have been married for 35 or 40 years. She cannot express her toileting needs or say that she is simply lost, which is what these people are. That is the reality.
This is replicated widely throughout the UK. Life is simply harder, as taking the standard medication is a trial. It is little wonder that, currently, one in four NHS hospital beds is occupied by someone living with dementia.

Bob Stewart: It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
A friend of mine tells me that his wife suffers from dementia. She sometimes turns round to him and says, “Why are you sitting in my husband’s chair? Get out.” Isn’t that tragic?

Jim Shannon: That is exactly the kind of story we are all trying to illustrate with our words, or broken words, this afternoon. It is exactly what my constituents say to me.
The economic cost to the UK of caring for people with dementia is estimated to grow from £24 billion in 2014 to £47 billion by 2050. If that is the case, we really need research and development. Everyone who has spoken in this debate has said that we need it now.
I do not want to catch the Minister out, as that is not my nature, but the commitment in the 2019 Conservative manifesto has not yet been delivered. I am not getting at him, as he knows, but we need to have that commitment delivered. Dementia is increasing, and so must our response. We need funding for cures and coping mechanisms, which goes back to the commitment on research and development.
Asking people to play a game of sudoku on their phone each day is not a preventive strategy. We must put our money where our mouth is and find a way to answer the question of dementia. Way before covid arrived, I was invited to attend a dementia and Alzheimer’s help group at the Church of Ireland church in Newtownards. I learned a lot that day from speaking to family members, who told me that playing music sometimes seems to bring those with dementia or Alzheimer’s back to where they were. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire spoke about dancing, and I saw a lady dance—that is what she remembered. Music seems to bring people back, so it can be therapeutic.
There is one event I attended that I do not think I will ever forget. I know the people who run an Alzheimer’s and dementia home. They are very good to all their residents, who have different levels of dementia and Alzheimer’s and are at different stages. The trust were doing an event and they invited me as the MP and some of the local councillors down. They said, “We are going to try to illustrate to you what it’s like to have dementia or Alzheimer’s.”
Here is what they did: first, we put earphones on, which kept the noise around us but made a constant noise in our ears that was quite deafening and scary.  They locked us in a room, in darkness, and they put a mask over our eyes so we could see nothing but darkness, which the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to. They put a sole in our shoe that had points in, so that every time we took a step it was like stepping on stones. We did that for 10 minutes, and it was probably the closest I ever came to being mad. That is how horrendously scary that experience was, and it left a lasting mark on me. That illustrates, from a personal point of view, what it means to have dementia or Alzheimer’s.
In the 2019 Conservative manifesto, the Government committed to addressing dementia, pledging to double funding for dementia research to £160 million a year. However, I say gently to the Minister that two years in we have seen no plan to deliver that funding increase. I understand that there are reasons because of covid-19, but there are also reasons to deliver what was committed, which we all support, and we would all support the Government to make that happen.
The latest figures show a decrease in Government spending on dementia research. For the year 2020, funding for dementia research was £75.7 million, down £7 million from £82.5 in 2019 and £22.4 million down from its peak of £98.1 million in 2016. That tells me that we really need to do something. I know this Minister is a Minister of action, and I know that, when it comes to telling us what will happen, he will be able to tell us that that funding commitment will be addressed, so I look forward to his response.
I support the calls of Alzheimer’s Research UK. The rapid development of the covid-19 vaccines, a success story that we all welcome, tells us that, if we focus on something, we can do it. If we can do it, let us do it—and if we need the money that was committed to make that happen, let us do that as well. That is what we want to make happen. Alzheimer’s Research UK says:
“The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated the role the UK Government can play in bringing together different stakeholders to focus on a common challenge, and the impact this collective energy, funding and determination can have. In parallel to increased research funding, we need the approach taken to COVID vaccines to be applied to dementia—coordinated, ambitious action from government to bring together industry, health services and researchers”—
all those who want to help, including our Minister and the Government. It continues:
“This bold approach must be reflected in the forthcoming Department of Health and Social Care’s Dementia Strategy and will ultimately ensure UK patients have priority access to innovative new dementia treatments.”
Dementia is unfortunately a growing problem, and we must focus on it, not simply because it will be beneficial to our financials in the long term—it will—but because families are being torn apart by the pain of losing loved ones while they care for their shell. That is what is happening. It is like losing a piece of them week by week, and it hurts. It hurts all those families. It hurt the right hon. Member for Beckenham, it hurt the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire and it hurt the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who lost her mum.
When I think of all those things, I believe we can do more to stop dementia, and funding for research is the way we must go. Again, I look to the Minister—to my Minister and to my Government—to make that manifesto commitment a reality, and sooner rather than later.

Steven Bonnar: I too commend the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this debate and for her excellent contributions to it.
We have heard that dementia affects around 850,000 people in the United Kingdom—one in every 14 people over the age of 65, and one in every six over the age of 80. Dementia is one of the leading causes of death across the United Kingdom and currently, as we know, there is no cure. The most well-known impact of dementia on an individual is progressive memory loss, which affects both mental and physical abilities and makes it difficult to execute even the most basic of daily activities effectively and efficiently. When someone is diagnosed with dementia, it can be overwhelming, as they face several difficult challenges on the long road ahead.
We all know and have heard just how much dementia has affected many of our constituents and their loved ones during this awful pandemic. The House heard so lovingly from my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) about his plight and the plight of his wonderful mother Marion. I have spoken to those who care for family members across my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, and they have expressed how much more difficult covid and the pandemic have made the experience, as the pandemic has presented its own new and unique challenges.
Not only does dementia cause harm and heartbreak to millions of families throughout the countries of the UK but it is completely unsustainable for our health and social care systems. The economic cost to the UK of caring for people with dementia is estimated to grow from the £24 billion it was in 2014 to £47 billion by 2050. Age is, of course, by far the biggest risk factor for a dementia diagnosis, and as our population ages the number of people diagnosed with dementia will increase. The number of people living with dementia in the UK is expected to exceed 1 million by 2025.
As we have heard, 90,000 people are currently living with dementia in homes all across Scotland. That is why the SNP Scottish Government published a dementia and covid-19 action plan in December 2020, to build on, continue and expand the national action taken since March 2020 to support people with dementia and their carers. The Scottish Government are working with partners such as Age Scotland to help dementia patients to get better support and have a bigger say in what works for them and in their individual care package.
The Scottish Government have pledged a further £1 million to help to tackle dementia in Scotland. Brian Sloan, the chief exec of Age Scotland, said:
“This funding will help address some of these challenges by shaping communities that work for those who have lived experience of dementia.”
That is a clear indication of the effectiveness of Scotland’s response. The Scottish Government have seen how the coronavirus pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on people with dementia. Through partnerships, they will help to grow the community support that has been considered critical to people and their families. I am of the belief that Scotland is also seeing positive results through our policy of integrated health and social care among health boards and local authorities. The Westminster Government should follow that lead.
Of course, Scotland is currently the only country in the United Kingdom with free personal care, which is extremely important support for people under the financial strains that dementia and living with dementia can place on families. People who are not in Scotland may wonder what that looks like: a dementia sufferer can receive up to four visits per day in their own home, where care is administered and the carer spends some time with them because, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, loneliness can be one of the biggest indicators that mean people simply give up. We must do everything we can to make sure that people live a fulfilling and wonderful life.

Lyn Brown: Hear, hear!

Steven Bonnar: Thank you.
In 2017, the UK Government declared that the UK would be the most dementia- friendly country in the world by 2020. [Interruption.] The Minister nods his head, but unfortunately we know that that is not true: just look at the hundreds of dementia care homes in England that were discovered to be providing substandard care to their dementia patients.
A Care Quality Commission report found that one in every five homes specialising in dementia were rated as “inadequate” or “requiring improvement”. Some posed such a serious risk to people with dementia—because of filthy living conditions, poor infection control and poorly trained staff—that inspectors had to order them to be put into special measures. In total, 1,636 care homes are failing patients, according to findings described as “appalling” by charities and campaigners. They stated that immediate action was required to address the “unacceptable” state of dementia care across the country.
If we are to position the UK as the world leader in dementia—something we all want to see—we should not start by cutting the much-needed funding that was promised by the Government for dementia research. As we have heard, the 2019 Conservative party manifesto committed to address dementia by pledging to double funding for dementia research to more than £160 million per year. However, two years later and another broken promise later, we find ourselves in the same situation, with no plans from the Government to deliver on their manifesto pledge. The funding for dementia research for 2020 was £75.7 million—a decrease from £82.5 million in 2019 and from the high of £98.1 million in 2016.
What else do we need to say to persuade the Government to recognise the importance of funding dementia research in trials? Currently we have over 150 clinical trials worldwide examining potential dementia treatments. It is more pressing than ever that we can transform dementia diagnosis. We need early diagnosis of the diseases that cause dementia and we need to diagnose them more accurately; otherwise it will be too late for patients to benefit from potential new treatments. The Government should invest now in infrastructure, resources and the clinical workforce to build diagnostic capacity and support innovative ways of organising NHS services such as brain health clinics to offer new diagnostic pathways. I look forward to the Minister outlining how the Government intend to achieve that.
The Scottish Government have proven our commitment to dementia research with a one-off £75 million increase in funding for our universities to ensure that they can  protect world-leading research programmes against the financial impacts of covid-19. That is exactly how we protect those we care about and those who care for us. The current prevalence rate of dementia among older people in the UK is about 7.1%, and of the four countries Scotland has the lowest prevalence rate, with England having the highest overall prevalence rate. With the growing trend and threat of dementia to our citizens, it is now time for this Government to act and to outline a proper plan to help combat the threat of dementia across these nations, with the goal of preventing people from developing the onset of dementia.
The UK Government can follow in the footsteps of Scotland and become the world leader in dementia research they told us they would be, but to do so they must deliver on their manifesto commitments to double the funding for dementia research, speed up progress in clinical trials, and ultimately—maybe only by the grace of God—help us to find the cure. We cannot allow any more time or opportunities to pass by as we seek to support those living with and at risk of dementia.

Andrew Gwynne: I wholeheartedly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this vital debate, and for the work that she does as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for the debate. What it lacked in quantity of Members, given that it is the last debate before the recess, it certainly did not lack in quality.
I think there is unanimity on recognising the value of dementia research and on willing the Government to do more. That degree of unanimity is unusual in such an adversarial Chamber as the House of Commons, but we have had a good debate today. I pay tribute not just to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth but to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar).
Dementia is the only condition out of the 10 conditions with the highest mortality rates for which there is no treatment to prevent, cure or slow its progression. Almost 1 million people are currently living with dementia. Every three minutes, someone develops the condition. As we heard very powerfully from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), it affects not just the individual but those around them—their family and friends. Dementia is also severely underdiagnosed, and that has been further exacerbated by covid-19. There is a backlog of approximately 35,000 people aged 65 and over waiting for dementia diagnoses. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his response, could outline the specific measures that the Government will take to improve early detection of dementia. I also pay tribute to the many charities working on dementia, to the individuals working in research and, as the right hon. Member for Beckenham rightly did, to those caring for people with dementia—not just the professional carers, but the massive army of often family carers looking after their loved ones.
Unless we find a prevention or cure for the disease that causes dementia, the number of people in the UK living with the condition is likely to reach 2 million by 2050—a shocking statistic. As we have heard, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were the leading cause of death in 2021. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said, in 2021, we were in the middle of the covid pandemic and rightly focused on the tragic deaths of people from covid-19-related illnesses, but dementia and Alzheimer’s topped the league table. Indeed, in 2019, 15.9% of all recorded female deaths were due to the condition. This is big, and I know that the Minister understands the severity. Those shocking statistics mean that dementia has consistently, for whatever reason, over a long period of time, suffered from under-investment in research.
Great work is being done in my constituency of Denton and Reddish in Greater Manchester, as it is across the United Kingdom. I pay particular thanks to those working in Tameside and Stockport memory services, who give the initial dementia diagnosis, provide individuals with initiating and monitoring medication, and connect them to support groups in their community. That kind of holistic approach to dementia care is crucial.
Dementia can be cured only with research, however, which is why I am also proud of the work that the Greater Manchester dementia research centre is doing in this field. The centre aims to connect people living with dementia to cutting-edge studies and to the National Institute for Health Research. The centre works across the UK through the UK Brain Health Network, which has researchers in Bristol, Edinburgh, London, Cambridge, Oxford, Cardiff and Belfast, and which aims to bring molecular diagnostics into routine practice throughout the country.
Alongside the wider Greater Manchester “Dementia United” strategy, that innovative work gives my constituents who suffer from dementia the research, support and clarity that they deserve. It is just one example of the really good work taking place across the country. We need world-class research to achieve the best quality of life for people and families living with dementia.
The Minister is perhaps one of the nicest people I have to face—other than you, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I know that he genuinely wants to do the right thing, which is good. He knows, however, as has been referred to on numerous occasions, that his Government’s 2019 election manifesto promised to pour £1.6 billion into dementia research over the next decade as part of the so-called dementia moonshot. There has been huge unanimity in the debate that we want to see that happen. That was a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South. Over two years on from the general election, we have seen no plans to deliver that funding increase. The latest figures show there has actually been a decrease in Government spending on dementia research, with funding down by over £20 million since 2016. It has gone down by £7.2 million per year under this Prime Minister. That is totally unacceptable. I hope that in his response the Minister will address how on earth that has been allowed to happen.

Lilian Greenwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction in Government funding is particularly concerning, because the pandemic has had a devastating  impact on the ability of charities to fundraise? Medical research charities, which fund 51% of all medical research in the UK, have seen their ability to fundraise reduced drastically.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. There has been a perfect storm. As we have heard, there is a growing list of people waiting to be diagnosed properly with dementia as a consequence of the covid pandemic, and, as she rightly says, the very research groups doing in-depth analysis and research into this disease are largely reliant on charitable sources of funding, which have almost completely dried up over the course of the pandemic.

Debbie Abrahams: I was going to mention this when I wind up, but I could not agree more. Funds to medical research charities, such as Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, have more or less halved—an awful impact.

Andrew Gwynne: Absolutely. This is a crucial point and it is why the Government really must come good on their promises.
I also hope the Minister will update the House and give us a timetable for the publication of the dementia strategy. Patients living with dementia, and their loved ones, cannot wait for the Government to get their act together. We need a plan and we need it to go much faster to develop treatments to change lives. The Government must deliver now on their 2019 dementia moonshot manifesto promise to double Government funding into dementia research. No more excuses: that promise needs to be kept. As we have heard, funding is needed now more than ever in a research landscape that has been decimated by covid. Not only have charitable donations dried up, but a survey from Alzheimer’s Research UK found that more than a third of dementia researchers were considering leaving, or had left, academic research due to uncertainty around funding opportunities.
I want to raise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) in an intervention on the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. She rightly made the point that too often these research projects are not necessarily seen as sexy. We have to make sure that that is not the case, because as I have said, they are so crucial. Labour is committed to doubling dementia research spending to over £160 million a year and to playing our part in finding a cure for this cruellest of diseases. That is a part of our commitment to not only protect but enhance the UK science base and achieve 3% of GDP spending on science and research across the economy.
Patients and their families must be a priority. That starts with dementia research, improved early diagnosis and world class clinical trials. Our goal must be to prevent, treat and ultimately cure this complex and often heartbreaking condition. That is why Labour’s suggestion of a 10-year plan of investment and reform for older and disabled people, including those with dementia, is so important. It would ensure that more people could access care and live in their homes for longer, while being supported by carers paid a proper living wage of £10 an hour.
British people deserve better. We need to meet the challenges of this century of ageing. We need to learn from the pandemic, because there are so many lessons that we can put into ordinary life. We need to treat those who are diagnosed with dementia with the respect that they deserve. This is not a party political point; there is unanimity across this House of Commons. We must redouble our efforts on research for dementia to improve care and support and, ultimately, to find a cure for this dreadful disease.

Edward Argar: In response to one of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I would not take away from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who has the Adjournment debate, the honour of having the last debate before the House rises. The shadow Minister is absolutely right about the importance of the subject we are debating, and I am grateful to him, as always, for his tone and what he has said. I find myself in agreement with him perhaps more often than is good for my promotion prospects; that is one for the Whips not to note in their book.
I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this hugely important debate. Before I was a Minister, I had the privilege of working with her and the all-party group as one of her co-chairs. I pay tribute to her for her work and her dedication to this issue, which is one of the most important that we will debate in this House, and to the work of the all-party group and the various charities that engage with it so diligently and give so much of their time.
I hope the hon. Lady will find it encouraging that even though this policy area falls within the ministerial portfolio of my hon. Friend the Minister for Care and Mental Health—I am, therefore, taking this debate on her behalf—I still read the reports and calls for evidence that the all-party group puts out. I will turn to the dementia moonshot in a moment, but I particularly remember the report from, I think, September last year with its overall recommendation and seven subsequent recommendations. I hope it reassures the hon. Lady to know that I continue to follow very closely the important work that she and the all-party group do. I hope that she will pass on to the all-party group, and the Members of this House who serve on it, my gratitude for their work.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, and indeed all hon. Members who have spoken, have highlighted in different ways either personal or constituency experience, or the work of organisations in their constituencies. As a Minister, I do not often get the opportunity to pay tribute to particular organisations in my constituency, unless I can somehow work them into debates that I am responding to. I join Members in highlighting a number of them, including the memory café, which I have visited, in Syston in my constituency. I had the privilege of visiting, pre pandemic, the Cedar Mews care home, which specialises in providing care for people with dementia, and working with local Dementia UK members in their campaign to raise the funding to secure an Admiral nurse to help people with dementia and their families in Leicestershire. We are all very familiar with  Macmillan nurses, and it is important that we take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Admiral nurses in this context and raise their profile.
The hon. Lady will know that, like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I am a dementia friend from my days on the all-party group. I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members who have not engaged with that process to do so. It involves undertaking an incredibly thought-provoking and valuable session, which will make hon. and right hon. Members look at these issues in a different light, however well informed they think they are. I commend that programme.
This debate on dementia research is very timely, since the Government are currently developing their new dementia strategy, as has been mentioned. The new strategy will set out our plans for dementia for future years, and it includes our ambitions for dementia research. We are working closely with patients, researchers, funders and charities to develop these plans, and we look forward to setting out—I think the shadow Minister and other hon. and right hon. Members called for this—a bold approach to the challenges of dementia.
The central recommendation in the APPG report on dementia—it has been mentioned by a number of hon. and right hon. Members—was for the Government to deliver on the election manifesto pledge on dementia research, but I know that they entirely understand the impact of the pandemic. The SNP Government in Scotland, for perfectly good reasons, have had to break their pledge to deliver a fourth dementia strategy from 2020, following their highly successful third dementia strategy because they were unable to consult and develop their plans and had to prioritise dealing with the pandemic. For exactly the same reasons, the pandemic has had the same impact on the UK Government’s focus and on the funding, which we had to put into covid over that period.
I will turn to the manifesto pledge in a minute, but I know—I may get the pronunciation wrong—that the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) is a reasonable and sensible gentleman. My comments may not do him any favours with his Whips, but I know he will appreciate the impact that dealing with the pandemic had on the ability of the UK Government, and indeed the devolved Administrations, to implement their ambitious plans at the time they wanted to. However, that does not take away from the commitment of both the UK Government and the Scottish Government, now that the pandemic has receded, to get on with delivering what I know we all want to see, and I think that is a shared ambition.
I can reassure the House that we remain absolutely committed to supporting research into dementia. The funding pledge that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish highlighted in his remarks was in the 2019 manifesto, but of course we still have some time in this Parliament to run—I believe—and it is a longer-term pledge. There is still an opportunity to deliver on that and the Government still recognise the importance of that commitment. I will turn to funding in a moment and pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
The impact of the pandemic has been significant, and of course people with dementia, and their families and carers, have been very hard hit by its effects and by the  necessary measures to combat it. I do not think anyone could have put it more effectively and more movingly than the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) who, in order to help our understanding, shared with the House—I know it will have been difficult—and therefore with the country, his experiences and those of his mother Marion. I pay huge tribute to him for his courage and bravery in talking about something that I know will still be very painful. From what he and Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), said at the time, I know how close he was to his mother. Sadly, I never met Marion, but I get the impression that she was a wonderful and amazing lady. I pay tribute to him for his courage.

John Nicolson: Thank you.

Edward Argar: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I think he speaks for thousands across this country who will have had a similar experience during the course of the pandemic. We must never forget every one of the people lost during this pandemic, whatever medical reason caused that, and we must never forget the families and carers of those with dementia.
As we have heard from hon. and right hon. Members—the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth talked about her mother, as did the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who is no longer in her place—the challenge and the impact of dementia are huge. Dementia is a heartbreaking condition that, sadly, impacts many of us, or will do, either directly or through family and friends. More than 850,000 people in the UK have dementia, and they are supported by a similar number of carers, many of whom are older people themselves, and we must never forget the debt we owe to each and every one of them. Of course, in a sense they do not see it as our owing them a debt. They do it out of love for their relatives and their friends, and that possibly even adds to the gratitude that we as a country should show them in recognition of what they do.
Hon. Members have mentioned the Office for National Statistics data on deaths due to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in 2019, and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made a very important point. In common parlance and commentary, people talk about Alzheimer’s as dementia and dementia as a single disease, but she is right to talk about dementia as an overarching term for a variety of diseases. I will return to education and awareness-raising. ONS statistics show that in 2019 deaths attributed to dementia decreased for the first time since 2009, but they remained the leading cause of death, accounting for 12.5% of all registered deaths in that year.
On the point that I was making to the hon. Lady, there are three key elements that we as a society and as a country need to look at. First, we need to raise people’s awareness and understanding of dementia. We want to have a society in which we all think and feel differently about dementia; one where there is less fear, stigma and discrimination and more understanding. While many thousands of people have dementia, we must not see it as an inevitable part of ageing. I will return to that.
In the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen a breaking down of the taboo and unwillingness to speak about cancer, for example. As a society and as individuals, we talk much more in our national and individual discourse  about cancer and what we can do to help prevent it, to treat it, and to make people feel less alone when they have a cancer diagnosis. We have made progress on dementia, but we still have a long way to go to raise that awareness and have that national debate. All hon. Members play a huge role in stimulating that debate, and today’s debate has helped to do that.
To return to the heart of the matter, perhaps one reason why people do not engage with it or talk about it—they may feel frightened—is that although with cancer we know that there are diagnostic tests and that every day we are making new discoveries that help increase the opportunity to find a cure and treat it or so that people can live longer and well with it, we are not there yet with dementia. I suspect that there is an element of people thinking, “Well, if I get the answer and nothing really can be done, do I want to know?” The short answer is that it is always better to know, because that allows the person to plan and have those conversations. Through knowing, they can also help advance that research. However, I understand the entirely human reaction of people thinking, “Maybe I’d prefer not to know.” We need to continue that conversation.
The second hugely important aspect is support and care for people with dementia and for those who care for them. While we seek to improve prevention and diagnosis as well as seeking that cure, we need to ensure that those living with dementia and those who are supporting them feel that they in turn are supported. We are determined to support those living with dementia to live the fullest possible life for as long as possible and to support those who care for them.
Alongside that, the third element—in a sense, this is the crux of some of the speeches and the debate—is research into testing and diagnosis. While it is not often the case, I think that hon. Members in the Chamber are as one in seeking one goal: the day we find a cure for dementia—or, at the very least, something that can delay it or treat it.
While we wait for that day, it is important to recognise the point made about prevention by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). There is much that we do know about how people can help reduce their risk of dementia through lifestyle factors and a range of other things. They may not be exclusive, but there is an opportunity for people to take simple steps that help prevent or reduce the risk of getting dementia. We need to do more to spread that message and raise awareness of that in our society. I am grateful to her for making that point, because we want to reduce the number of preventable dementia cases.
I will return to other points subsequently, but let me turn to research and the moonshot that has been mentioned. The new dementia strategy will set out our plans to tackle dementia over the coming years. I try not to be partisan, so I pay tribute to the Scottish Government’s 2017 to 2020 dementia care strategy—I think it was their third—as well as the two related workforce programmes and a range of other measures. We can always learn from each other and best practice in different parts of our Union, and we should certainly be willing to do that in a space such as this. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has kindly invited me to Edinburgh to see a range of things that she wishes to  showcase to me. I hope that I will be able to take her up on that offer and also see my opposite number in Scotland, Secretary Humza Yousaf.
Hon. Members raised a question about the devolved Administrations and working together. I think the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who is no longer in her place, mentioned the joint dementia research work. We are working with the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Alzheimer Scotland. We are jointly funding that work to ensure that, notwithstanding other contexts in this House where we may have debates about our Union, we are genuinely working together to deliver a positive outcome.
Increasing research spend takes time. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the impact that the past two years have had on the spending prioritisation, as we have had to focus to meet the immediacy of the covid situation. However, we have committed to invest at least £375 million in neurodegenerative disease research over the next five years. To the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, we are working across Government to finalise outcomes from the spending review and to identify ways to significantly boost research on dementia.
With that in mind, I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, who says that in this context, I will always have a friend in him. I always find that I do have a friend in him; I have known him for a long time. Without straying into territory more properly reserved to the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, let me say that there is a joint ambition across Government to continue to drive this agenda forward. Knowing my hon. Friend as I do, and watching his work as Chair of the Transport Committee, I suspect that he will not hold back in expressing his views on matters such as this, about which he is passionate.
The £5 billion investment in health-related research and development announced in the 2021 spending review reflects the Government’s broader commitment to support research into the most pressing health challenges of our time, including dementia. A number of specific points have been raised by the APPG and other Members. I will touch on as many as I can in the time available, but seek to leave five minutes for the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, because I suspect she will want to come back on some of these points, given her work.
I turn to prevention, including what the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will do to help reduce people’s risk of developing dementia. The APPG report recommended that the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities launch public information campaigns on dementia risk reduction. OHID is involved in the development of the new dementia strategy, which will include proposals on prevention and risk reduction. The concept of brain health as part of encouraging people to reduce their dementia risk—going to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South—is being actively explored. OHID has been working with the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK to review public facing materials aimed at raising public awareness of dementia risk reduction.
I should take this opportunity—I fear I omitted to do so in my opening remarks—to pay tribute to Alzheimer’s Research UK, Dementia UK, the Alzheimer’s Society  and the myriad local charities and groups that are working so hard to drive forward this agenda, and to support people with dementia and their families, as well as the research space. I add my tribute to that of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to the Greater Manchester research centre. Sadly it does not fall within my portfolio, but he and I might be dextrous in finding a reason within my portfolio that allows me to go and visit it with him jointly, which we would both enjoy.
More than 15 million people aged between 40 and 74 are eligible for an NHS health check in England, and during such a check, individuals are made aware that exercise, healthy weight, healthy diet and reduced alcohol consumption help maintain a healthy brain, and we need to continue to emphasise that message and the support that is out there through those health checks. I think it was the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth who touched on early diagnosis—it is not just about focusing on research for a cure, but on diagnosis. Timely diagnosis of dementia, as with so many other diseases, plays a hugely important part in ensuring that a person with dementia can access the advice, information, care and support that can help them plan and to live well with the condition and remain independent for as long as possible.
Everyone with dementia should have meaningful care following diagnosis, including information on local services, access to relevant advice and support and what happens next. Carers should be made aware of and offered the opportunity for the respite and support they need. DHSC guidance is already available, titled “After diagnosis of dementia: what to expect from health and care services”. When we set out our dementia strategy, diagnosis will be a key element of that.
Medical research charities have come up in this context, too, because it is not just about the big institutions—small institutions, academic institutions and charities are all playing their part in this space. I agree with Members in the analogy they drew with the vaccines and what can be achieved and what was achieved when there is an imperative to do it. I find myself agreeing with the shadow Minister. When we put our minds to doing something as a society and a country, there are often no limits to what we can achieve, as we have seen. We must put the same focus on this issue.
We recognise that the pandemic has caused problems across the sector and that many charities are facing difficulties just as their services are needed most. Medical research charities are a vital part of our life sciences ecosystem, and they provide significant research funding and training. Importantly, they amplify the voices of patients and their families in that process. Officials at the Department have been closely liaising with the medical research charities to better understand the impact of the pandemic on them and to seek to identify how we can work together to support their research and them. In that context, just one example is that my Department, alongside the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has announced a £20 million support package to help support early career researchers funded by charities. That will protect that pipeline of talent coming through the research system, to which Members have referred.
We have a rich dementia research ecosystem and we need to continue to support it. Through the UK Dementia Research Institute, scientists have made huge leaps in  understanding the mechanisms underlying disease progression, and researchers have developed potential new diagnostics and treatments. It is painstaking work. The hon. Lady will remember when the focus was very much on amyloids, and whether that would produce a route to that cure. Often with research it is one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one step back, so the sustainability of investment and focus is vital if we are to make the breakthrough that we all wish to see.
Dementias Platform UK has established technology-based networks to better understand how dementia starts and to support experimental medicine studies. As the APPG report recognises, in partnership with the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK, people with dementia and their carers continue to be recruited via Join Dementia Research to take part in a range of important research.
Through our National Institute for Health Research, we are supporting high-quality studies on preventing dementia through interventions targeted at known risk factors, service provision, care and care technology. There are many examples, but to give one, the “Well-being and Health for People Living with Dementia”, or WHELD programme developed an intervention to improve wellbeing for people with dementia in care homes and to reduce unnecessary prescribing of anti-psychotic drugs. In the 2021 spending review, as I have alluded to, we announced that £5 billion investment in health-related research and development. That reflects our commitment to support research, including in dementia.
We have taken positive action over the past year, notwithstanding the pandemic, to lay the ground for further developments and further research. Within the National Institute for Health Research, we launched a new £9 million call inviting research proposals on the early detection of dementia using digital technology. We launched a £3.6 million research for social care call to address important social care questions relating to dementia. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth has taken a close interest in that, both in her previous shadow ministerial role and on the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, and I think that the APPG has called for evidence on social care impacts. We launched a highlight notice on dementia that invites ambitious dementia research applications; it signals to the community that dementia is a priority area for the NIHR.
As we work across Government to finalise the outcomes of the spending review and look towards the spring, the House, the Government and the country need to retain a focus on this issue, which is one of the most testing challenges we face as a society. We are living longer, which is a great testament to advances in medical science and in its ability to fix our bodies and keep them going for longer. The ability to understand, repair and treat our brains has perhaps not moved forward at the same pace, so we are living longer with dementia. That is, in a sense, positive, but it presents challenges for society, and it is why we must retain a focus on dementia.
We need to continue to build on our successes in order to accelerate the progress on dementia research, but we cannot do that alone. We will continue to work on this across Government, and with charities and the research community. By and large, we share the objectives of the shadow Minister and his colleagues. We may disagree from time to time on how to get there, but I suspect that  we have, and will retain, a common objective. Crucially, we must work with people with dementia and their families to bring forward our ambitious plans for our new dementia strategy.
It has been a great privilege and pleasure to wind up such an important debate, and to speak on a topic that is not in my ministerial portfolio, but in which I have taken such a close interest over the years. We owe it to our constituents and future generations to rise to meet the challenges of our ageing society and of dementia. We must redouble our efforts to do that; when we do, I believe that our society and our country will meet the challenge of dementia and find the cure that we all seek.

Debbie Abrahams: Let me start with some thank-yous. I thank all the speakers who contributed to today’s debate on dementia research, which is absolutely essential for the reasons that many of us have discussed. I am very grateful to every Member who shared their personal stories and experiences.
This is not something that will go away. We will see an increase in people with dementia, but it does not need to be that way. Before I go on to what we need to do and comment on the Minister’s winding-up speech, I pay tribute to my constituency, where we have 3,000 dementia friends. I was the first MP to train as a dementia friends champion; I deliver sessions on the subject across my constituency, and our youth council has taken part in this, too. It is an important way that we can drive up awareness, because so many people have personal experience of the effects of living with dementia. We have an annual memory walk, and many of our retailers have undertaken training, so that when someone gets to a checkout but does not know what they are there for, or what money they need to pay for the goods, there is understanding, rather than tut-tutting.
I worked hard with the Minister over a number of years when he was co-chair of the APPG. There is absolutely unanimity here—my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to it. Members on both sides of the House need to do  more. Unfortunately, what has happened so far is not enough. We need to ask the Government to stump up for the commitments that they made in the 2019 general election.
The money that has gone on neurodegenerative diseases research covers a much broader spectrum of diseases than those that contribute specifically to dementia. The early career researchers fund covers all diseases, not just those specifically focusing on dementia. The families of people with dementia deserve better. They deserve delivery on a promise that was made to them more than two years ago. The impact that dementia is having on people’s lives cannot be underestimated.
There is a lot more that can be done. We can have screening programmes, like those that we have for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancers, for people in their early 20s and 30s. Diagnostic tools have been developed to enable diagnosis to happen sooner, rather than later, so that dementia does not have an impact on people as they grow older and it is picked up early. It is not good enough for the Government to say, “This is what we are doing.” They really need to deliver.
I hope the Minister will take this message back to the Treasury, so that there is an announcement in the spring statement. I know the Minister is personally committed to this issue, but the Government need to back him up.

Nigel Evans: As the Minister said, this has been a significant debate on the last day before the week’s recess. I have been an MP for 30 years and I remember that one of my first surgery cases was a lady who came to see me. Her husband had a very senior position and was well respected throughout the community but he had succumbed to the cruelty of dementia. She broke down in tears as she told me how she had had to put post-it notes all around their home in order for him to know where the cups were and things like that. My eyes welled up listening to her story. It is such a cruel condition, and we wish everybody working in dementia research in the UK and throughout the world well in order that they can protect lives in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved.
That this House has considered dementia research in the UK.

Ambulance Services in England

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Double.)

Justin Madders: I am pleased to see the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), in his place. He and I have debated many issues on health and social care over the last couple of years, and ambulance services have perhaps not had the attention that we would have liked. I know the Minister has had an extremely busy week, possibly because of the new trend for Ministers having multiple jobs, so I am grateful that he is here to deal with the points that will be raised.
It is an important and timely debate. We are regularly seeing images of long delays, with ambulances stacking up outside hospitals for long periods of time. Those images demonstrate wider difficulties throughout the whole system, but on an individual level they mean that patients are not getting the care they need as quickly as they should. The blame for that does not lie with the staff—the paramedics, the first responders and the call handlers—all of whom do a magnificent job in very demanding circumstances. We say thank you for their service, not just in the last couple of years but throughout their time in the NHS.
Despite their efforts, we are in a crisis. Last week ambulance waiting figures outside hospitals reached their highest level in five years. The latest NHS figures show that record numbers of patients in England—over 150,000 of them—have waited in the back of an ambulance for at least half an hour so far this winter, because emergency departments are too busy to admit them. That is the equivalent of one in every five patients—that is the scale of the challenge that we are facing. Those figures sound extraordinary because they are. They are 14% higher than the previous highest total for the number of patients forced to wait during the same period, with the previous high being in the winter of 2019-20.
As awful as those headline figures sound, the figures for the number of ambulances waiting more than 60 minutes are even worse: they are up 82% compared with the last two winters. These are exceptional and concerning statistics.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Double.)

Justin Madders: In my constituency, the British Heart Foundation has told me that it is concerned about reports from the North West Ambulance Service that patient flow in and out of emergency departments is currently very slow, with ambulances being held for long periods, which has the knock-on effect, of course, of causing higher category 1 and category 2 stacks. Worryingly, we have heard reports of delays of up to four hours in these queues.
I am sure these figures, as shocking as they are, will not surprise hon. Members who, like me, have probably had many emails of concern and complaint from worried constituents. Behind these statistics are tens of thousands of seriously unwell people in dire need of help. As the chief executive of the Patients Association said:
“Going to A&E can be frightening. To then be stuck in an ambulance unable to get immediate medical help once you get there must add to the trauma of an emergency visit.”
I think we can all understand where they are coming from. The Royal College of Nursing’s director for England also points out:
“Having to wait outside in an ambulance because A&E is already dangerously overcrowded is distressing, not just for patients but also for staff, who can’t provide proper care.”
It must be so frustrating for those staff, knowing there are other urgent calls they could be going to, that they cannot leave their current patient because the hospital is already at capacity.
I agree with those comments. Not only does having an ambulance stuck outside A&E as it waits to offload a patient mean that it is unable to answer 999 calls, which leads to slower response times, but it means we lose ambulance hours. We lost 8,133 ambulance hours in the last week of January due to crews having to wait outside busy A&Es. That is an incredible statistic.
As NHS Providers points out:
“safety risk is being borne increasingly by ambulance services.”
We know that people are dying in the back of ambulances or soon after their admission to hospital because of these long waits. We heard from ambulance chiefs in November that 160,000 patients come to harm each year because ambulances are backed up outside hospitals.
The shocking report from the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, which is based on NHS figures, did not report how many patients die each year because of ambulances stuck outside hospitals, but it did say:
“We know that some patients have sadly died whilst waiting outside ED”—
emergency departments—
“or shortly after eventual admission to ED following a wait. Others have died while waiting for an ambulance response in the community.”
The report acknowledges that, whether or not those deaths were inevitable
“this is not the level of care or experience we would wish for anyone in their last moments.”
The report also highlights that around 12,000 patients suffered serious harm because of delays, sometimes with a risk of permanent disability. In the same month, more than 40,000 people in England who called 999 with a category 2 condition such as a stroke or heart attack waited more than one hour and 40 minutes for an ambulance. Of course, the NHS target is to reach them within 18 minutes.
Just last week, NHS figures revealed that thousands of people are dying because ambulances are taking too long to answer emergency calls. The official statistics show that only three of England’s 32 ambulance services are reaching a majority of immediately life threatening call-outs within eight minutes. In fact, the latest available NHS England data for December 2021 shows that the average ambulance response time for category 2 emergencies —suspected heart attack and stroke patients—is 53 minutes and 21 seconds: three times the 18-minute target. Those are incredibly worrying figures.
The British Heart Foundation also reports that there were 5,800 excess deaths from heart and circulatory diseases in England during the first year of the pandemic alone. Although it acknowledges that these excess deaths were driven by a multitude of factors across the entire patient pathway, it also says it is very plausible that some of the deaths could have been prevented if these  people had been able to access urgent and emergency care in a timely manner. If we are to avoid more preventable deaths and disability from heart conditions, it is vital that the most critically ill patients can access the care that they need when they need it.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to say what action has been taken to address the dangerous impact on emergency heart attack and stroke care and the victims whose lives are being put at risk, what conclusions the Department has reached as to why so many trusts are failing to reach the targets that have been set for them, and what steps are being taken to reduce waiting times for responses to 999 call-outs and ambulance waits. We know that these delays matter. If 90% of 999 calls were answered in time, 3,000 more heart attack victims could be saved each year.
I have reeled off a lot of statistics. Now I want to give a couple of constituency examples to show what this means for people who have experienced long waits. Thankfully neither case ended in tragedy, but these were clearly difficult and distressing times for those involved.
One constituent told me that she had waited more than 10 hours for an ambulance, having first called 111 at about 10.15 am, when she was advised to call 999. When she called 999, it took a few minutes for the call to be answered. The call handler confirmed that an ambulance would be coming, before asking if it was OK for her to hang up and go on to the next call. About an hour later, having seen no sign of the ambulance, my constituent called 111 again and was told to call 999, but was then told that the ambulance waiting time was about eight hours. At 2.30 pm she was forced to call 999 again, as her husband’s condition was becoming noticeably worse. By that stage he could not move or talk because he was in so much pain. The call handler took the details again, but advised my constituent only to call if the condition worsened further.
Another three hours passed, with my constituent’s husband in absolute agony. When she decided to call again at 5.30 pm, she waited more than five minutes for the call to be answered. The call handler asked if the patient was breathing, and said that an ambulance could only be sent if a patient was not breathing, as it was a busy day, although he did also confirm that the request for an ambulance had been prioritised after her call at 2.30 pm—which, by that stage, was three hours earlier.
The ambulance eventually arrived at 8.45 pm, 10 and a half hours after the initial call. Unsurprisingly, my constituent told me that the paramedics were lovely and could see immediately that her husband needed to go to hospital. When he arrived there, he was scanned and treated, and operated on within 24 hours. It was clear that he needed urgent medical treatment; in fact, he probably needed more treatment than he would have needed had he been seen at the right time. However, in the long run, no serious harm has come to him.
That is just one example of a person who waited longer than they should have. It was not an isolated incident; we know that this is happening week in, week out throughout the country. Another constituent told me that he called an ambulance after his wife collapsed at home. They are both pensioners. My constituent  called 999 at 11.45 am, and was told that an ambulance would not be able to attend for at least nine hours. He cancelled the call.
The Minister will no doubt be aware of the tragic case of Bina Patel, which has received considerable media coverage, and has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Anyone who has heard the calls that were made requesting an ambulance, and the clearly urgent nature of those calls, cannot fail to be concerned about what is happening in our ambulance services. As I have tried to emphasise, these are not one-off incidents; they are part of a wider pattern, and symptomatic of a system unable to cope with the demands placed on it.
Targets are not being met and people are being put at risk or worse, but NHS England’s response is a proposed new standard contract which contains a “watering down” of several waiting-time targets, with standards lower than those that were in place before the pandemic. The proposals include scrapping the “zero tolerance” 30-minute standard for delays in handover from ambulance to A&E and setting it at 60 minutes, and introducing the additional targets that 95% of handovers must take place within 30 minutes and 65% within 15 minutes. I do wonder how performance can be improved if targets are loosened. The pandemic should not be used as a cover for this, as performance across the system was getting worse before the pandemic. Indeed, it is nearly seven years since the normal targets were met. By scrapping standards for delays in handover, the Government are trying to normalise those longer waiting times. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) asked the Secretary of State earlier this month whether he really thought it should take an hour just to be transferred from an ambulance into a hospital. It should not take that long. Does anyone really think it is acceptable for people ringing 999 to be told they must make their own way to hospital?
I am sure the Minister is aware of reports in the Health Service Journal last month that several trusts, most notably the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, advised people calling 999 with symptoms of a heart attack or stroke to take a taxi or a lift with family or friends rather than waiting for an ambulance. I am sure the Minister will want to comment that that is not what we want to be hearing from our ambulance services.
The British Heart Foundation told me that it recently reviewed two calls to its heart helpline that highlighted instances where patients with suspected heart attacks called 999 and paramedics did attend, but then asked both to have their family drive them to hospital for further tests because the ambulance services in their area were under so much pressure. Neither person actually went to A&E, which is most unfortunate: one did not want to bother their family and the other thought that, if the ambulance was not taking them, their situation must not be urgent enough, which of course was not the case.
In short, those two patients did not access the care they needed because of the message being sent out about the burden they were placing on the system. That is completely wrong and certainly not the message we should be giving people who are clearly in urgent need of treatment.
A recovery plan has been announced this week, which, if we are honest, does not really address the issues of the wider NHS and social care pressures. It does not have any real plan for this particular area. The recovery plan, such as it is, is one part of the much wider system overhaul that is needed.
The Secretary of State said this week that approximately 10 million people represent missing referrals who did not come forward for treatment during the pandemic. I am afraid they may well end up becoming urgent referrals because they have not been through treatment and been spotted and helped at an earlier stage. I do not know whether the Government have given any thought to whether those 10 million missing referrals will lead to increased pressure on emergency services and A&E attendances.
What about those people whose care was not managed to target? The British Heart Foundation estimates that up to 1,865,000 people with high blood pressure were not managed to target last year, which could mean more than 11,000 additional heart attacks and more than 16,000 additional strokes across England over the next three years if those patients do not get support. Of course, that will again increase pressure on urgent and emergency care services in the longer term.
I appreciate there is quite a lot of ground to cover here, but when the Minister responds I would be interested to hear his analysis of the situation, whether he believes the examples I have given are part of a wider pattern of concern or isolated incidents, and what he believes must be done to put the ambulance service on a sustainable, safe footing for the long term. Are those images that we have seen of ambulances queuing up outside hospitals a temporary feature of a very difficult winter, problems with the ambulance service in particular, or symptoms of a wider health and social care system that is under incredible pressure?

Nigel Evans: Back-to-back appearances at the Dispatch Box by Ed Argar.

Edward Argar: Reflecting the rest of the week, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing this important debate. In the same spirit, this is rather nice; it is like déjà vu: he used to shadow me at that Dispatch Box and in Committee. It is a pleasure to respond to his debate on this occasion.
However, I must say that responding to the hon. Gentleman is a pleasure slightly tempered by caution on my part, because I know the depths of his expertise on this subject after his many years shadowing the Minister for Health—I think he shadowed my predecessors as well. He has great depth of knowledge in this space. He is and has been a notable advocate for our ambulance service and what it needs, and he looks forensically into those issues. I also know that he is a diligent reader of The BMJ, the Health Service Journal and various other excellent trade and specialist publications. It is a genuine pleasure to respond to him on this extremely important issue. It is a shame that the way in which the House allocates debates means that this is the last debate of the day, so there are few Members in the Chamber for it, because it is important. However, those we have in the  Chamber are quality, and I look both at the shadow Minister—sorry, the former shadow Minister—and the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson).
As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston highlighted, ambulance services have faced extraordinary pressures during the pandemic. I am sure that the House will join me and the shadow Minister—the former shadow Minister; by force of habit, I keep calling him the shadow Minister. The hon. Gentleman and I have not always agreed, but we have been as one in paying tribute to all those who work in our ambulance services up and down the country. They have done an amazing job over the past two years, during the pandemic, to the very best of their ability. Of course, they do that amazing job day in, day out; irrespective of pandemics, they always do everything they can to support those who need them.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that the pandemic has placed significant demands on the service. In January 2022, it answered more than 800,000 calls. That is an increase of 11% on January 2020 and is one of the factors placing significant pressures on ambulance services, the wider NHS and the A&E departments to which they will take people when they feel that there is a clinical need. Although 999 calls tend to highlight the demand related to more serious medical conditions, many ambulance services are also responsible for 111 calls, which, in December last year, saw an increase of 15.5% compared with December 2019.
I use those statistics to illustrate the demand pressures, but I understand that behind those numbers, in every case, lies a human story—someone in need of care, someone worried and anxious, with friends and family anxious for them—so before I seek to go into the reasons, statistics and our plans and support, I want to say that I am sorry for patients who have suffered the impact of those service pressures. I want to be very clear that patients should expect and receive the highest standards of service and care.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted some specific examples, including the case of Bina Patel. He is right that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has raised that with me. I have asked for full information because I want to get back to her with as full an answer as I can, and I hope that he can convey that to her, if he speaks to her before I do. I am fully aware of her correspondence raising this on behalf of the family.
Let me turn to ambulance response times and the reasons sitting behind some of the pressures. The ambulance service is facing a range of challenges that are impacting on its performance. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with many of them, including the impact, still, of infection prevention and control measures not only in the ambulance service but particularly in A&E departments and wider acute clinical settings. Higher instances of delays in the handover of ambulance patients into A&E as a result of some of those factors, which I will turn to, are therefore leading to ambulances waiting for longer in queues and not being as swiftly out and about on the road and able to respond to calls. So there are knock-on effects there.
One of the key challenges, which the hon. Gentleman will be very familiar with, remains the question of flow through an A&E and through a hospital. I am referring to the flow of patients out of ambulances into the A&E, who are then able to be treated in the A&E and discharged, hopefully, or who are then, in some cases, able to be  admitted to a bed in a hospital ward. To do that, we have to see discharges continue of patients who no longer meet the criteria to reside because they have recovered sufficiently, and the national discharge taskforce has done a huge amount of work on addressing that challenge.
In recent months, we have seen the combined pressures of winter—the hon. Gentleman and I are familiar with those on an annual basis—and the impact of the omicron variant on the number of hospitalisations, which have not been as high as many feared and predicted, thankfully, but which have still had a significant impact on hospital beds. The combination of those factors, coupled with a high level of workforce sickness absence rates, including through positive covid tests—particularly over recent months with omicron—has created pressures that we would not expect to be systemic or built into the system. That partly reflects longer term pressures, and I will move on to what we are doing to address those, but a large element of it is down to the specific circumstances of the past winter.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the support in place to improve services, and asked what we are going to do about it, and what is being done to address these issues. He is true to form from when he shadowed me, as he will always set out the challenge and ask me what I am going to do or am doing about it, rightly holding the Government to account. Because of the pressures I mentioned we have put in place strong support to improve ambulance response times, including a £55 million investment in staffing capacity to manage winter pressures to the end of March. All trusts are receiving part of that funding, which will increase call handling and operational response capacity, boosting staff numbers by around 700.
NHS England has strengthened its health and wellbeing support for ambulance trusts, recognising the pressure of the job on those working in the ambulance services, with £1.75 million being invested to support the wellbeing of frontline ambulance staff during the current pressures. NHS England and Improvement is undertaking targeted support for the most challenged hospitals, to improve their patient handover processes, helping ambulances to get swiftly back out on the road. That is focused on the most challenged hospital sites where delays are predominantly concentrated, with the 29 acute trusts operating those sites being responsible for more than 60% of the 60 million-plus handover delays nationally. That is targeted support for trusts that have particular challenges, either from the current situation or where there are underlying issues that we need to resolve.
There is capital investment of £4.4 million to keep an additional 154 ambulances on the road this winter, and a £75 million investment in NHS 111 to boost staff numbers by just over 1,000, boosting call taking and clinical advice capacity that will better help patients at home, and better help triage those who genuinely need an ambulance and those who can be treated safely in a different context. There is continuous central monitoring and support for ambulance trusts from NHS England’s national ambulance co-ordination centre, and we have also made significant long-term investments in the ambulance workforce. The number of NHS ambulance staff and support staff has increased by 38% since July 2010.
More broadly, alongside the ambitious plan set out by the Government earlier this week, showing how we will invest the significant additional resources in outcomes for patients, just over a year ago we invested £450 million in A and E departments, to help mitigate the impact through increased capacity of infection prevention and control measures. I have regular direct meetings about discharge rates, and what we can do further to improve the flow of patients through hospital trusts within NHS England, with members of the taskforce on that.
I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that those measures have had an impact, and we are seeing improvements in response times from the peak of the pressures in December. Performance data for January, published today, shows significant improvement against all response time categories. Performance for category 1 calls—the most serious calls, classified as life-threatening—has largely been maintained at around nine minutes on average over the past several months, and improved to eight minutes and 31 seconds in the latest figures. That is despite a 19% increase in the number of incidents in that category compared with December 2019. Average responses to category 2 calls improved by more than 15 minutes compared with December, and the 90th centile responses to category 3 calls by more than two hours.
We recognise that that is welcome progress, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree, but there is much further to go to recover fully from the pandemic’s impact on response times and to sustain that improvement. We welcome the service’s hard work and dedication and pay tribute to it for making those changes and delivering the significant improvements on which I am updating the hon. Gentleman.

Justin Madders: As always, the Minister is being courteous and comprehensive in his response. Will he comment on the concern expressed earlier about patients being told, when visited by the service, that they needed to go to hospital but should find their own way there? That is extremely worrying, and we should be clear that it is not what we expect to happen.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I keep feeling tempted to say shadow Minister; he is a shadow Minister but he is no longer my shadow—for that point. He is right that when people ring 999 they should be given the appropriate clinical advice on whether they need to go to hospital, and if they do, an ambulance should be sent. I suspect that in individual cases a call handler may have made a tough clinical decision about the fastest way to get someone to hospital given the availability of ambulances, but the hon. Gentleman is right that if someone rings 999 and their condition is clinically deemed to require an ambulance and swift transfer to hospital, they should be able to expect an ambulance to come, assist them and take them to hospital.
At a time when the NHS is facing unprecedented demand, ambulance services are absorbing some of the increase in pressure. They are treating more people over the phone and finding other ways to reduce pressure in a clinically safe way. With clinical support in control rooms, the ambulance service is closing around 11% of 999 calls with clinical advice over the phone. That is far more than the 6.5% achieved in January 2020 and saves valuable ambulance resources for response to genuinely more urgent clinical needs.
Let me say a little about North West Ambulance Service, if that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman—I know that he and the hon. Member for City of Chester take a close interest in their local ambulance service. Our support and investment has benefited the North West Ambulance Service. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston’s local trust received £6.2 million of funding, which it has used to increase its workforce for operational and contact centre teams. The trust is also engaged with regional NHS England and Improvement and commissioning teams to develop a six-point winter plan that seeks to address six key areas throughout the winter period. As it starts to get a little warmer and the daffodils start to come out, it is tempting for people to think that winter has passed, but winter pressures in the NHS can continue into late February and occasionally a bit beyond. I wanted to add that caveat.
Three systems-led initiatives focus on the reduction of hospital handover times, the improvement of pathways for patients with mental health presentations and ensuring that alternatives to emergency departments—including access to primary care and other non-emergency-department pathways—are available to North West Ambulance Service in a timely and responsive manner.
Hospital handover delays continue to challenge the North West Ambulance Service footprint. Through its Every Minute Matters collaboration, which began three years ago, the trust has been working with other hospital trusts on improvements by working with senior leadership teams in hospital trusts to ensure there is a shared understanding of the risks of handover delays and a lack of ambulance resources to respond to patients in the community, to revisit action cards for operational commanders and, crucially, to recognise  and thank staff for their continued reporting of delays and willingness to highlight problems to their managers or to the trust.
The trust’s strategic winter plan has been activated and includes details of the measures in place to handle winter pressures and mitigate the effects of increased demand and a loss of capacity. The plan is comprehensive and covers a wide range of topics and details on the preparation for various scenarios. It includes several continuous improvement initiatives for support during the winter period.
In summary, North West Ambulance Service is increasing its double-crewed ambulance capacity in line with winter funding arrangements, reducing conveyance to emergency departments and reducing the number of lost operational hours caused by day-to-day operational challenges. The trust has already seen significant improvements in the number of patients managed effectively through telephone advice, which helps free up ambulances to be deployed to where they are most needed. The trust has recruited additional paramedics and emergency medical technicians and upskilled its ambulance care assistants to blue light driving standard, thereby enabling the trust to deploy 269 additional frontline staff by the end of December.
I close by reiterating the Government’s commitment to support the ambulance service. We retain regular contact with ambulance services, trusts and those delivering on the frontline to help to ensure that patients and the ambulance service receive the care and support that they need. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for bringing this matter to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.